Chad Brand and R. Stanton Norman, Editors, Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2004.
Referenced in: Plural-Elder Congregational Leadership
LifeandLeadership.com Summary
This is an excellent comparative look at five different types of church government, written in counterpoint style where a representative of each viewpoint makes a case, followed by a response from those of different perspectives. It is similar to Who Runs the Church with slightly different categorizations.
The editors open with a good discussion on why church government/polity is important. This is followed by a brief history of church governance covering the early church, Middle Ages and Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Anglicanism), Post-Reformation and the rise of denominationalism.
Below is a summary of the five viewpoints and other contributions of the authors:
The Single-Elder-Led Church – The first section of this article contends that the New Testament churches were congregational in polity over against Presbyterian or Episcopalian models. The second section looks at the nature of the role of elder/bishop in the New Testament, traces Southern Baptist history relative to the role of the elder/pastor, and defends the single-elder model on biblical, theological, and practical grounds.
The Presbytery-Led Church – This article affirms governance by elders/overseers, but goes beyond by urging that the New Testament presents a governmental “connectionalism.” “The New Testament teaches in broad outline that the churches of the apostolic age were bound together by a connectional government of graded courts (local “session,” regional “presbytery,” “general assembly”) reflecting mutual accountability, dependency, and submission among them.” (95) This is based largely upon seeing a pattern in the procedures in Acts 15, and a desire to offer a tangible expression of the visible unity of the church to fulfill Christ’s prayer in John 17:20-21. The article overviews Presbyterianism in church history and discusses the qualifications, duties, and ordination of church officers. It also describe the nature of Presbyterian oversight rule and the church’s responsibility to submit to the authority of its elders/overseers.
The Congregation-Led Church – The author, James Leo Garrett, Jr., defines congregational polity: “That form of church governance in which final human authority rests with the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decision-making. This means that decisions about membership, leadership, doctrine, worship, conduct, missions, finances, property, relationships, and the like are to be made by the gathered congregation except when such decisions have been delegated by the congregation to individual members or groups of members.” (157) He then explains each piece of this definition, and adds that “congregational polity can be practiced according to different patterns. This is true both externally and internally. …Congregations may practice ‘independent Congregational polity’ or ‘cooperative or interdependent Congregational polity.’” The difference being whether they do or do not “cooperate on a sustained basis with other congregations or affiliate with and support denominational or interdenominational bodies for missionary, educational, benevolent, or other purposes.” This polity also “admits of different structures such as the pastor and deacons structure, and the pastor-deacons-committees-church council structure. In every case, however, the units within the structure are subject ot the final authority of the congregation.” (158) He defends this polity from Scripture, beginning with Matthew 18:15-20, Acts 6:3, Acts 13:2-3, Acts 15:22, 1 Corinthians 5:2, 2 Corinthians 2:6, and others. He also shows reflections of the congregational model in Christian history, and points to over 30 denominations that practice some form of congregationalism today. (See Who Runs the Church for their division of congregationalism into single-elder and plural-elder; also Wayne Grudem’s five congregational systems in Systematic Theology, 928-936). This article also discusses how congregational polity affects/reflects theology, priesthood of all believers, spiritual gifts, Christian growth toward maturity, the witness of all Christians, pastoral leadership, deacon servanthood, church discipline, and the kingdom of God. Garrett ends with a discussion of the contemporary crisis regarding congregationalism, especially among Southern Baptists, and closes with a discussion of the advantages of this model.
The Bishop-Led Church – This is equivalent to the Episcopal model as discussed in Who Runs the Church. The author, Paul F. M. Zahl, opens not with a defense of the bishop model, but instead with a fine discussion on the relative theological and practical importance of questions regarding polity. The author says, “I believe any period of Christian history for which ecclesiology and polity are the driving issues is decadent by definition. It is decadent because polity is a lesser interest in relation to the great question of…” (he lists issues that are of much greater significance). (210) He continues, “’Church’ questions are legitimate questions after all. But they are penultimate questions. They are penultimate, even marginal, in the experience of millions and billions. They are penultimate in human experience. No one ever wakes up in the ‘wee, wee hours,’ crying uncontrollably to the top of his lungs, ‘I am an Episcopalian, I am an Episcopalian before all things, so help me God!” ? He adds, “Church questions are penultimate in the Bible. They are penultimate in the Bible because the evidence in Scripture is multiple, not necessary, and therefore universalizable. Anyone who argues in favor of the universality of a particular New Testament polity will always have to devalue or deemphasize one or another conflicting text. …[aside from not being able to sustain the Roman Catholic position] The New Testament evidence is simply too diverse. There is no one governing New Testament ecclesiology.” (212) How then does one decide on a polity? Zahl proposes, “The only good case which can be made for specific forms of church order or polity has got to be made under the sign of bene esse. Bene esse is the Latin phrase for ‘well-being.’ It refers to something that contributes to the well-being of a thing rather than its essence or identity. We can say, for example, that Episcopal church order…is a good thing, adding to the bene esse or well-being of the church. But Episcopal church order is not constitutive of the church. To say that a particular form or feature of church government identifies the being of the thing or establishes its core identity: that is the other theory, the esse theory of church. Some Anglicans [as well as Presbyterians and Congregationalists] believe, for example, that government by bishops defines the true church. They say that unless a church as bhisophs, it is not a true church: it is defective. Its DNA is off. It can have everything else – the gospel message, the sacraments, true doctrine, and good order – but if it does not have bishops, it is defective. It is a sect. …Esse thinking can be found in sectors and schools of thought throughout all polities of Christianity. [He mentions the Church of Rome, Churches of Christ, “high-church” Episcopalians, some Presbyterians and Baptists, etc.] Then, Zahl gets to the meat of his defense of Anglican-Bishop polity. He says, “The starting point of this essay…is that we affirm the bene esse view and repel the esse view. The esse view will always be arbitrary, and therefore divisive, because it features and underscores one particular system of church order as being formative of identity.” He continues, “My objection to the esse view is this: it can never be sustained from the text [New Testament]. From there, he offers a discussion of the history, development, strengths, and weaknesses of the Episcopal, Bishop-led polity.
The Plural Elder-Led Church – The author, James R. White, offers a defense first of autonomous/independent congregationalism, expressed as “the sufficiency of the local church.” He follows with a biblical and practical defense of a plurality of elders in these local churches. I would strongly recommend supplementing this chapter with Samuel Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalism” in Who Runs the Church.
From the Publisher
This book presents in counterpoint form the basic models of church government which have developed over the course of church history with a view toward determining which is most faithful to Scripture. Each chapter will be written by a prominent person from within each tradition—with specific guidelines dealing with the biblical, historical, and theological issues within each governance tradition. In addition, each writer will have the opportunity to give a brief response to the other traditions. Chapters by Daniel Akin, James Leo Garrett, Jr., Robert L. Reymond, James R. White, Paul F. M. Zahl
About the Authors
Chad Brand is associate professor of Christian Theology at Boyce College of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He resides in Louisville, Kentucky.
Stan Norman occupies the McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He resides in New Orleans, Louisiana.
***For additional information on this resource, including reviews, click the bookstore links. Check the reference at page top or the links below for resource guides on related topics.***
Related Areas
Other Ministry Resource Guides:
- Church Leadership and Renewal
- Elders, Plural-Elder Congregational Leadership
- Elders, Policy Governance Models
See Resources on Over 100 Areas of Ministry Leadership: