Ian Boyne, Contributor
THE ISSUE of church governance has become a heated one in a number of Protestant denominations, reflecting the strong democratic ethos and the ever-burning quest for self-expression.
While the Roman Catholic Church continues to be hierarchical in structure, with the Pope having ecclesiastical authority over millions of Catholics, worldwide, Protestant denominations like the Baptists maintain that the hierarchical structure is contrary to the letter and spirit of the New Testament and that churches should be democratic and autonomous.
Meanwhile, a growing emphasis on the charismatic gifts of lay Christians and of the giftedness of all Christians (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and Ephesians 4), leads many Christians to conclude that clerical control of the church is unbiblical, some going as far as calling it Babylonian. Those who hold a liberal view of scripture could plausibly maintain that if the text of the Bible is conservative in investing "excessive" power in the eldership and pastorate, a proper reading of "the sense of scripture" and an evolutionary, progressive view of revelation would indicate that the democratic ethos of the present age is quite in harmony with the spirit of scripture.
However, for Fundamentalists who take the Bible literally, it is hard to argue, that, for example, members have a right to appoint or fire elders or ministers. Let's consider some crucial texts.
The model the Bible presents is that of ministers (or apostles) appointing other ministers. Acts 14: 21-23 shows the apostles going outside Jerusalem to appoint elders for the brethren in every church which was established. Was it just that these were new churches inexperienced in the task of appointing ministers, or, was it not the pattern we see in the Pastoral epistles where Paul outlines the criteria for both Timothy and Titus to appoint elders (Timothy 2:2 and Titus 1:5).
Where do Baptists get the idea that the congregation has the right to appoint ministers? The Episcopal and Roman Catholic traditions radically differ from the Baptist tradition and ironically while the former two tend to be more liberal to their view of scripture, their interpretation of scripture on the matter of church governance seems closer to its literalism than the Baptists, coming from their Lutheran tradition of "the priesthood of all believers".
Acts 6 is sometimes misunderstood as teaching democratic selection of leaders. But note that it was the Twelve, the leadership corps of the body of disciples, who summoned the disciples and delegated the responsibility to them to select the seven. When the disciples made the selection, using delegated authority, the seven were "set before the Apostles", obviously, the Apostles had the veto power, Acts 6:3 says pick out the seven men whom "we may appoint to this duty".
When there was a major doctrinal dispute involving circumcision and the Gentile mission, Paul, Barnabas and others went to Jerusalem "to the Apostles and the elders". It was clear that lay brethren were involved in this Jerusalem conference but the decisions were made by their leadership. Acts 16:4 makes it absolutely clear that the decisions "which had been reached by the apostles and the elders" had to be observed by the sister churches outside Jerusalem. The Emissaries of Jerusalem delivered to the churches "for observance" the decisions reached.
Now if these churches functioned more like Baptist churches where each congregation is autonomous and not accountable to any general assembly, then how could these decisions be imposed on those churches? The form of church Government was closer to the Roman Catholic system than to the Baptists.
There are also some pretty strong texts in Scripture about the kind of authority which pastors or elders have over the congregation. Hebrews 13 does not read well in this democratic, I-am-my-own-boss kind of an age, "obey your leaders and submit to them for they are keeping watch over your souls". 1 Thess. 5:12 speaks of leaders who "are over you in the Lord"; in 1 Cor. 16:16 Paul urges subjection to Stephanas and every fellow Gospel worker of his (Paul's).
In many texts, too, Paul speaks very strongly about his own authority over the churches he founded (1 Cor. 4:18; 1 Cor. 5: 3-5; 1 Cor. 14:37-40; 2 Cor. 13:10).
Paul was faced in Corinth with many Christians who hold the Charismatic view of authority and who believed that their giftedness made them unbounded by structure. Paul slammed them by telling them if they thought they were prophets or spiritual they should acknowledge his commands. 1 Timothy 5:17 refers to "the elders who rule well", and if all Christians are on the same authority level, then how are some specifically called overseas? (Acts 20:28). CG Kruse, in a most enlightening essay in the impressive 1011-page dictionary of Paul and his letters: A Compendium of Evangelical Scholarship which says, "While Paul spoke of all believers having gifts of ministry, he also believed that certain ones had been divinely appointed to have a leadership role in the church."
Did the Protestant Revolution go too far?
Ian Boyne is a minister in the Church of God International.
