How should a Christian Church be governed?

So admittedly there is some overlap among these governing methods, but I still think the question is interesting. As usual, please engage the question in a tolerant fashion; just because we believe we are right does not mean that we have to unjustly treat those who we believe are wrong. I am holding my vote now to see how the arguments develop, and, once I have voted, reserve the right to vote again if someone changes my mind . Below is a summary of several ecclesiastical governing principles which I have encountered in my masters thesis work:

Accomodation: The Church conforms to the structure of the Empire (the political order now, I guess) in matters of ecclesiastical governance.

Pentarchical: The five sister Patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) shall govern the Church, each according to their individual dispensations.

Roman: The Pope (Patriarch of Rome), as the supreme head of the Church, is the supreme authority in matters of doctrine, as well as in matters of ecclesiatical governance.

Conciliar: A Church council is the supreme governing authority in the Church. This definition is to be understood as it existed in the era of the Councils of Constance and Basel-Ferrara-Florence. Indeed, conciliar theory overlaps all of the earlier principles, and is, in one form or another, present in Christian history from the beginning. Therefore, if you choose this option, please enlighten me/us all as to how you think it relates to the others.

Other: Well, that's pretty straightforward, isn't it .

What is so interesting about this question is that by choosing one you do not, necessarily, negate the principles of some of the other choices. Thus, if you wish to vote, please explain your decision, both why you believe as you do, as well as how it relates to the other four. As I said, I will be holding my judgement--largely because...I have to go to Church . I also wish to see how the conversation develops, and, while I do lean toward a couple of the choices, do not quite have time to explain right now. See you all in a bit .

-Akolouthos

Edit: By the way, this is not a poll reserved specifically for Christians, for two reasons. 1) That would be discriminatory, and against the rules of this forum. 2) More importantly, not being a Christian does not make anyone any less apt to discuss something as practical as ecclesiastical governing techniques/methods (in my opinion at least ).

Edited by Akolouthos

Localy, to put it bluntly.

I think that a council with the leaders of all churches would be a nice step. There are differences between protestants, orthodox and catholics but the essential is there. It would be wonderful if we could reunite the Christian Church once more.

That's surely nothing more than wishful thinking. Nevermind that the Papacy would never give up its claim of universal supremacy over all Christianity, but such an intricate and fundamentally dogmatic belief will always spawn deviances and heresies. The same moment it would be re-united, the first splinter group would appear and promote their own variety of Christianity and the whole process of schisms and reformations would start all over again.

I both agree and disagree . I do agree that it is well nigh impossible for the papacy to give up its interpretation of the primacy; I also agree that it would be difficult to reconcile all of the dogmatic and ecclesiastical issues, and that once they were reconciled it would be difficult to keep them homogenous enough to have a "the" Christian church.

I would note, however, that the Church managed to do just that for several centuries (8-12--take your pick ). The biggest issues, at least for me, are the centuries of further fragmentation "Christendom" has undergone, and the advent of the information age. Heresies did exist, but they were eventually moved to the fringes (Arianism was extremely strong for a couple of centuries). I believe that the past decade or so has shown us that the increased level of communication would make it easier to spread heresy, and, thus, harm the Church--although it would work wonders for churches -- I would actually be quite grateful if someone showed me that this would not be so.

Anyway, I believe I promised that I would eventually venture my opinion as to how a Christian church should be governed, and, if you don't mind, I plan on stating how a church should be governed on its way to becoming the Church .

I feel that the organization that is necessary for the era of reunification (and I do agree with you Komnenos; this reeks of extremely wishful thinking) is different from that which would be most effective--and for that matter most scripturally, patristically, and doctrinally sound--if the Church came together again.  The structure I believe would be both necessary and effective, in the here and now, is the pentarchical structure of the ecumenical period. This structure puts a check on forces within the Church who would wish to pervert and/or deny the Gospel message in order to fit well with the times, as well as provides four checks to the authority of each Patriarch. Though I feel that the principle of accomodation--that is the structuring of the Church to fit the political structure of the world--is the ultimate goal of a united Christian church, I do have some reservations as to how realistically it could be applied without doing serious damage to (what I feel is) the revelatory truth of the Christian message. After all, conciliarity and accomodative principles go hand in hand (for me at least), and the church that I would say fits my definition of "how a church should be governed" is the Anglican communion, and I have serious doctrinal and hermeneutical problems with them. Does this mean I am wrong??? How could this happen??? For the first time too! Or maybe they are...yes...that must be it .

Anyway, really love everyone's responses. Keep responding and maybe I'll have something fun to do while I write this silly little paper.

-Akolouthos

P.S. I voted for pentarchy, even though I favor accomodation in the eventual (and perhaps idealized *sigh*) unified Christian Church. My reason? It looked lonely.

Edited by Akolouthos

Originally posted by Maju Democratically. At least governments should have no relation with entities that are not elected democratically. I fidn insulting that there's still people in the world that intend to rule someting in a non-participative and non-representative system.

That's idealistic but doesn't make sense.  Should businesses elect their bosses, vote on what productst to make?  Should soldiers elect their officers and vote on whether or not they want to attack?  Should students elect their teachers and have a debate and vote on the curriculum?

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Maju Democratically. At least governments should have no relation with entities that are not elected democratically. I fidn insulting that there's still people in the world that intend to rule someting in a non-participative and non-representative system. That's idealistic but doesn't make sense.  Should businesses elect their bosses, vote on what productst to make?  Should soldiers elect their officers and vote on whether or not they want to attack?  Should students elect their teachers and have a debate and vote on the curriculum?

In other times soldiers elected their commanders. Evan nowadays the highest ranking commanders are often elected by the whole nation (for instance: you president). As soemone said: every constitution of the state is a constitution of the army.

Anyhow, we are talking of private organizations: what are churches? Associations or companies? If they are associations (as I think it is the case) they should be ruled by democratic meants of the affiliated people. If they are companies they should not be tax-exempt and they should be either incorporated or personal property.

What I don't see is how NGOs such as churches or whatever must be ruled by authocratic schemes.

The church must be governed as revealed in the New Testament. After all it is the Word of God, the New Testament that defines the church in the first place. Each congregation is to have a "plurality" of bishops or elders, both terms refer to the same position depending upon the version, note ACTS 20:17-38. As we can see, the apostle Paul called the plurality of bishops or elders from the local church in Ephesus to come to meet him in Melitus. It is the bishops or elders who are to oversee or shepherd the local church, "among whom the Holy Spirit  has made them overseers". The only office above the "local" congregation is Jesus Himself as the Head of the Church. 1Peter 5:4. The city of Phillippi had a plurality of bishops or elders as well as deacons, read Phillippians 1:1-2. These are the totality of offices for governing the local church as revealed in the New Testament, God's Word. In addition "all" the members of the church of Phillippi were called saints. Saints thus were not special "dead" people, but a name used to describe "living" Christians. The apostle Peter also agreed, as we would expect with the apostle Paul, that the bishops or elders were to "shepherd" the flock among them, 1Peter5:1-5. Thus the authority of the plurality of bishops or elders is to be "limited" in their authority to the local congregation, among which they serve as bishops or elders. Bishops or elders are to have specific qualification to be appointed to this position of important responsibility. Note the qualifications of bishops in 1Timothy 3:1-7, as we can see, it is God's will that bishops "must" be married and have children who are to be believers. The qualifications are also found in Titus 1:5-9. The Head of the Church is Christ and no one else, read Ephesians 1:20-23. Thus the church is to be governed as revealed in the New Testament and in that fashion alone. Jesus is the Head of the Church which is His body, that has bishops or elders whose authority is limited to the local congregations they serve. It is sad that God's revealed will in this area is not followed by denominations. However it is followed today as the Word of God is like a seed, read Luke 8:11-15. Thus the statement of Cwyr is correct.

Originally posted by Cywr Localy, to put it bluntly.

The church, I agree, Cwyr should be governed locally as revealed in the New Testament, limited to the offices in God's Word. If this God made pattern was followed throughout history, the problems associated with manmade offices and authority would have been avioded.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc The church�must be governed as revealed in the New Testament. After all�it is the Word of God,�the New Testament�that defines the church in the first place. Each congregation is to have a "plurality" of bishops or elders, both terms�refer to�the same position�depending upon the version,�note ACTS 20:17-38. As�we can see,�the apostle�Paul called the plurality of�bishops or elders�from the local church in Ephesus�to come to meet him in Melitus. It is the bishops or elders who�are to oversee or shepherd�the local church, "among whom the Holy Spirit� has made them overseers". The only office above the "local" congregation is Jesus Himself as the Head of the Church. 1Peter 5:4. The city of Phillippi had a plurality of bishops or elders as well as deacons, read Phillippians 1:1-2.�These are the totality of offices for governing the local church as revealed�in the�New Testament, God's Word.�In addition "all" the members of the church of Phillippi were called saints. Saints thus were not special "dead" people, but a name used to describe "living" Christians. The apostle Peter also agreed, as we would expect with the apostle Paul, that the bishops or elders were to "shepherd" the flock among them, 1Peter5:1-5. Thus the authority of the plurality of bishops or elders�is to be�"limited" in their authority�to the local congregation, among which they serve as bishops or elders. Bishops or elders are to have specific qualification to be appointed to this position of important responsibility. Note the�qualifications of bishops in 1Timothy 3:1-7, as we can see, it is God's will that bishops "must" be married and have children�who are to be believers. The qualifications are also found in Titus 1:5-9. The Head of the Church is Christ and no one else, read Ephesians 1:20-23. Thus the church is to be governed as revealed in the New Testament and in that fashion alone. Jesus is the Head of the Church which is His body,�that has bishops or elders whose authority is limited to the local congregations they serve. It is sad that God's revealed will in this area is not followed by denominations. However it is followed today as the Word of God is like a seed, read�Luke 8:11-15. Thus the statement of Cwyr is correct. Originally posted by Cywr Localy, to put it bluntly. The church, I agree, Cwyr should be governed locally as revealed in the New Testament, limited to the offices in God's Word. If this God made pattern was followed throughout history, the problems associated with manmade offices and authority would have been avioded.

The problem with all this is, that far from being the word of god, the New Testament is a very earthly document written by very earthly writers, decades after Jesus' death. There is not a single shred of evidence that the statesments contributed to Jesus are actual quotations or even represent the meaning of what he might have said during his life time.
In fact the current version of the New Testament didn't come into existence till the late 4th century, when a selection was made from an enourmous variety of texts that all claimed to be either an account of Jesus' or the Apostle lives, or to be their representative theological comment.
And as many of the texts contained in the NT were written by member of the Church authorities, one can help the feeling that the New Testament contains amongst other things, a posthumous justification of the structures of the established Church.
There is no verified indication of how Jesus had planned the administration of his Church, if indeed he had ever planned to found one.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Bishops or elders are to have specific qualification to be appointed to this position of important responsibility. Note the qualifications of bishops in 1Timothy 3:1-7, as we can see, it is God's will that bishops "must" be married and have children who are to be believers.

Didn't notice this before, and I would be interested in a slight clarification. I notice you put the word "must" (in reference to the bishop having a wife) in quotes. Do you feel that it is absolutely essential for a bishop to have a wife, in light of Matt 19: 10-12? Or do you believe that it, of necessity, must be possible for married men to become bishops?

-Akolouthos