Theology and Economics: Ordering

I ended the previous post by asking, "So what should the leadership look like of a community of broken eikons undergoing transformation?" The answer? At the risk of being simplistic, it should look like whatever structure most effectively creates maturing eikons and "breathes" them out into the world.

The Roman Catholics understand Jesus to have established Peter as the first pope, and they see an unbroken line of bishops down to the present. The Anglican and Episcopal world generally accepts the development of the Church up to about the fifth century, which includes the emergence of clergy and laity (probably by about the third century) and the development of a hierarchy of bishops. The Orthodox traditions likewise consider evolving Church tradition and practice authoritative. Personally, I do not consider Church tradition authoritative to the degree these traditions do. Thus, dialog about church structure within this context requires extensive dialog about the role of Church tradition, which is beyond this discussion's scope. So I will simply leave it here, noting the divergence.

Protestants have evolved different forms of government that can loosely be grouped into three categories: Episcopal, Congregational, and Presbyterian. A hierarchy of bishops oversees episcopal types. The bishops provide oversight for churches and pastors under their jurisdiction. Congregations are appointed a minister who works in conjunction with local congregation leaders. The United Methodist Church and several African American groups follow this model.

The congregational types see the congregation as the determinative authority. They call their own pastors and make their own decisions by democratic procedures. They may link up with other congregations in affiliations, associations, or "conventions" for mutual ministry, but these larger organizations do not have the same level of authority or power over congregations that high levels of church structures have in other bodies. The pastor is usually a member of the Church and leads along with a group of deacons or elders. Baptist, congregational, and free churches would be typical examples.

The Presbyterian model is somewhere between these two. Congregations have a session (board) made up of ordained elders. Congregations are grouped in presbyteries. Pastors, considered specialized elders, locate their membership in a presbytery and then serve in a congregation when the pastor, the presbytery, and the congregation agree on a call. PCUSA Presbyteries consist of a 1-to-1 ratio of pastors and elders from all the churches, while some other Presbyterians use different ratios.

Nevertheless, the congregation is understood to be overseen by a team of elders of whom the pastor is a specialized member. Above the congregation are the presbytery, the synod, and the general assembly, in that order, and they are all balanced using a ratio between elders and pastors. Most American bodies with "Presbyterian" in their name would be of this variety.

My take is that you can neither fully justify nor fully discredit any of these models from scripture. As much as some try to find it, the Church has no prescribed structure. That is not to say there is no guidance. For instance, we see in Ephesians Chapter 4 that the primary mission of the leadership, however they were configured, was to equip the people for ministry and building up the body of Christ. We find elders being appointed by Paul to congregations in some instances (Acts 14:23), and we find Paul delegating the appointment of elders in others. (Titus 1:5) Some churches may have selected elders based on the synagogue model. There was specialization among elders as some devoted themselves to preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17). Deacons were formed so that the body's physical needs could be better addressed and the elders could be freed for the study and teaching of the Word. (Acts 6:1-7) People with prophetic messages regularly spoke out in gatherings, as alluded to in several of Paul's letters. There were leaders of whom higher standards were expected. (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, James 3) And is evidenced throughout the New Testament letters; there were mechanisms for ordering ministry and exercising discipline. But there was no prescribed structure for ordered ministry.

One of the aspects I have appreciated about the Emerging Church Conversation is the willingness to work from mission toward structure. Now some seem to conclude that having any structure should be resisted, and I find that more than a little naïve. Two or more people doing anything together create a structure. The only question is how intentional the parties will be about the type of structure they create. Places like Korea have developed massive cell church movements with a fairly authoritarian and hierarchical structure. It is in keeping with their culture. Other places like China have developed more fluid and less hierarchical structures because of the oppressive circumstances under which they must exist. Emerging Church folks suspect that we may need new structures for mission as Western culture becomes increasingly post-Christendom and postmodern. I think they are right. The challenge is to do what works best in the context without unwittingly bringing in modes and mindsets foreign to the Kingdom of God.

The bottom line for me is not in conforming the Church with some (nonexistent) prescribed Biblical model. It is in understanding mission in context and then equipping the entire body of Christ to be priest, prophet, and king as they do creation stewardship, Kingdom service and employ gifts in dispersion throughout the community, and as they gather together for corporate worship, ministry to each other and exhibit the Kingdom of God through larger coordinated efforts.

We are almost ready to return to the economics question, but before I do, we need to do a reality check on the resistance to truly becoming the priesthood of believers. And I am not talking about the people standing behind the pulpits on Sunday or folks working in denominational offices.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[Dana Ames]

Thank you.
Structure in itself is not evil; it is a tool that is meant to serve people. The problem comes about when people become a tool to serve the structure, and/or when people invest so much power in upholding a structure that the structure becomes an idol.

Dana

[Michael Kruse]

Tom Skinner talked about this as the ministry versus the monster. Structure is the servant of vision and mission, not the master.

[Ted Gossard]

Michael,
Thanks much for this. I appreciate the thought that structures of church government should be flexible according to the mission engaged in. That it should be flexible according to what works in that culture. Evidently, if what you're saying here is right, and the NT does bring a kind of ambivalent fluidity here, then there is freedom in this area. And good for emergents who are usually (I would think) not tied down to any one structure.

To really understand our calling as the priesthood of believers. I think the Biblical emphasis on that is as the dispersed community into the world. But I think we tend to look at it largely as applying to our gatherings.

[Michael Kruse]

"To really understand our calling as the priesthood of believers. I think the Biblical emphasis on that is as the dispersed community into the world. But I think we tend to look at it largely as applying to our gatherings."

These three sentences pretty much capture my whole critique. Thanks Ted!