THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH. PART 1

‘What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?’ asked the ancient church father Tertullian. His point was simple, ‘can any principles from Greek Philosophy be useful in the Church of Jesus Christ?’ What underlies this question is a larger question, which is this: ‘can natural theology and the pure reason of man be of any help in the organization of the New Testament Church?’ Is there a place for adopting principles discovered from reason, nature or experience that can aid in the building of the kingdom of God? This issue will ever be widely debated and this no more than in the area of Ecclesiastical polity, which simply means, the way the church of God is organized.

Because church polity is one area of theology that comes into close contact with earthly principles it should not surprise us that it has been widely debated throughout the history of the church. After all, the church is both a heavenly and an earthly institution and is deeply impacted by both spheres. This makes ecclesiology (the study of the church) a ripe target for debate. Now it is true that Christians are to contend earnestly for the faith once given to the saints. So warns Jude. Normally when we read these verses, most of us would equate ‘contending for the faith’ with fighting for pure theological precepts such as the person and work of Jesus Christ, the way of salvation, or the identity of the gospel. Yet throughout the course of Church History, the most vehement battles have been fought over church polity issues like church governance, the installation and evaluation of authority and the sacraments. In this article and the next we are going to hone in on what seems to be this very pedestrian doctrine of church government. And before the reader yawns and turns to something else, let me make a bold assertion that church leadership issues will affect the Christian more than any other single doctrinal issue. This is because church issues touch both the spiritual and physical aspects of the believer’s life. Most Christian belong to a church and serve in some capacity in the church. At some point in every Christian’s life church issues will dominate his thinking. Because churches touch our lives so closely, it is important that all of us who name the name of Christ be conversant in church polity matters. That is, it is important for all of us to understand what constitutes a well-run and healthy church. And if we don’t prioritize this in our mind then someday we will be taken unawares when a church issue suddenly blows up and affects you and your family. When people are polled as to why they have left the church, one of the chief reasons is ‘they had a bad church experience’ (see USA Today, June 29, 2021, Christians, Let's stop fighting each other and serve our neighbors in need instead, Chris Palusky). These bruised sheep know that church participation is important. Yet the pain they have experienced is too great to coax them into risking another church disappointment. We are not talking here of doctrinal differences. People who leave churches due to doctrinal differences normally go and find another church more in line with their beliefs. We are talking about the pain inflicted on sheep by the machinery of the church organization and by leaders who were commissioned to love and guide them. Though the symptoms of church disaffection are well documented rarely does anyone stop to analyze what might lie at the root of it all. In this post the author will argue that one of the great factors that lead to church dysfunction is a poor paradigm of church authority. People often come to churches because of body life, or programs or doctrine. But how many stop to ask questions about leadership structure? Are these questions any less important than other questions such as ‘is there a secure nursery?’ or ‘what is the church’s view on salvation by grace alone?’ Questions about authority ought to be addressed early on by anyone visiting a church. Questions like, ‘who makes the decisions around here? Who sits in the seat of authority? Is there membership and if so, how rigorous is the initiation into membership? What authority do members have? Are there checks and balances within the church to ensure that power is not vested in one privileged group?’ These are questions that visitors rarely ask .. indeed never think to ask. So in this introductory article let me prime the pump a bit by giving a broad outline of the different leadership structures that have been adopted by churches over the past two thousand years. But before we get into the different models let us first note some of the things all believers agree upon regarding church polity. First, all Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority over His church. He is the Great Shepherd of the flock and none may usurp His authority. Second, almost all groups believe that Christ has delegated His authority to certain entities who then rule for Him in proxy. Christ calls this transfer of authority ‘giving the keys of the kingdom.’ The issue then becomes to whom has God given that authority? Here the sparks begin to fly and differences of opinion become as numerous as denominations. Without getting too deep into the weeds, when you boil it all down there are only two possible centers of authority in the church; the people in the pews, or a specific group of divinely ordained leaders. That’s it. All church polity systems favor one of these seats of authority or a combination of the two. The first paradigm basically says that the church herself -- that is the people — is the ultimate authority in all matters of governance. If there are leaders in the body they are powerless figureheads that can only rule by the the will of the people. The second paradigm goes the other direction and says that leaders are directly commissioned by God and operate autonomously and are not subject to the will of the people. A third position, which this article will posit — says both the church (members) and the anointed leaders (elders, bishops, etc.) share authority in a symbiotic relationship where the authority divides itself up according to a predetermined covenantal agreement. So we have these three paradigms of church leadership laid out as follows:

1. Exclusive congregational authority (democratic)

2. Exclusive leadership authority (magisterial).

3. Congregational/leadership cooperative authority (balance of power).

Pure congregational authority is rare for ingrained in man’s nature is the need for some kind of hierarchy. Things never work very well when everyone is in charge. Pure democratization generally limps along like a grinding, inefficient machine that never decides anything, and provokes a myriad of arguments and hurt feelings. In the end one group will assert authority and thus end the experiment of pure democracy. Besides inefficiency, this view of church authority ignores the many biblical verses that speak of the existence of leaders in the body of Christ. In His very nature God is hierarchical and by extension His church must be characterized by the same. This does not necessitate that churches need elders, or people with official titles, especially when they are just beginning. Sometimes qualified elders are not available to lead a church according to biblical standards. In such cases those with the gifts of administration must be temporarily called on to lead and make decisions for the body (1 Cor 12:28). Churches existing without elders was common in the Book of Acts. When Paul and Barnabas went through the regions of southern Galatia they established churches at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. When they had formed one church they moved quickly to the next city and established a church there. They may have set up provisional leadership, but we have no record of that. Only on their return visit did they install elders (Acts 14:23). That means that those churches had existed for some weeks or months without ‘official’ leaders. This did not seem to be a great problem for Paul and Barnabas. In fact the argument could be made that they did not want to install elders too quickly until a sufficient period of time had elapsed so that the church could evaluate the lives of prospective leaders. This fact doesn’t make it desirable or optimal for a church to neglect installing duly appointed elders. We are merely saying that elders, though important, are not essential for the existence of a church. However some kind of leadership structure is. Saying that a church is purely democratic and that ‘everyone is in charge’ is naïve and opens up the door of confusion. A purely congregational church is therefore an impossibility based on the needs of normal human society, and the very character of God Himself.

A form of church government that characterizes a large part of Christendom is the exclusive leadership or magisterial model. Such ecclesiastical bodies are ruled by a person or group of persons who possess the ultimate authority and make all ecclesiastical decisions on behalf of the people. This model follows (knowingly or not) the Theocratic model found in the Old Testament. In the history of Israel God ruled directly over the Jewish nation. Sometimes His will was made known directly- for example in the movement of a cloud or a pillar of fire- but more often God used instruments to communicate His will to the people. For most of the Pentateuch we find that Moses was God’s anointed mouthpiece. When Moses spoke it was as if God Himself was speaking. Most magisterial churches would never say their leaders actually speak directly for God or have special access to God., yet when decisions are made by an autonomous or unaccountable group of men they are in effect saying they have a closer access to God’s will for the entire church community. Sadly, the answer of ‘we are the leaders and we know what’s best for the people’ is heard all too often in churches. This kind of magisterial leadership takes many forms. The extreme example is found in the Roman Church where the magisterium believes it lies in a direct line with apostolic authority and therefore is infallible in matters of faith or practice. The pope, the cardinals, and the overall Vatican machine truly believe they have direct access to the mind of God and are free to give binding proclamations to the people on any number of church related topics. Encyclicals written by the Pontiff bear that kind of authority. In the Orthodox church the authority rests on the shoulders of the patriarch (bishop) of a given diocese whose authority derives from an episcopal council or synod. This magisterial paradigm also exists in mainline Protestant churches as well. In the Anglican model the King of England is the head of the church and Defender of the Faith while most decisions are made by a General Council which meets every three years and is the church’s chief ruling body. Among many Reformed, Presbyterian and Baptistic churches, the magisterial model assumes a much more subtle form. Here we find an authority structure called ‘elder rule’ whereby a group of men called elders are give sole authority for major decisions in the church. Many contemporary reformed churches (Baptist and Presbyterian) have adopted this authority structure taking bible verses like Hebrews 13:17; 1 Tim 3:5, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12 to buttress their model. What is believed (and practiced) is that the elders are the sole authorities over the flock of God. This elder rule paradigm also comes in the form of ‘single pastoral rule’ where the church is governed by one single figure usually labelled the head pastor. Calvary Chapel, for example, operates on this scheme. The common denominator that binds these paradigms together is the existence of a ruling body (or individual) who holds all the authority over church matters. To say it another way, the laity—members who sit in the pews—are the passive recipients of the decisions made by a small group of authoritative leaders and are expected to obey.

But there is a third model of church leadership which I am calling congregational/eldership cooperative authority. This is a hybrid model that joins together the good features of the two previous paradigms. This model is gaining strength in evangelicalism because it is true to biblical texts that assert that biblical authority lies both with the church and with her leaders. This raises the legitimate question of how can there be two authorities in one entity? Is not that logically contradictory? This is where the geometrical shape of an ellipse might help. An ellipse is a ‘squashed circle’ that is formed around two ‘centers’ whose distance to any point on the perimeter plus its distance from the other focal point is a constant number. In other words, an ellipse has not one but two centers called foci (pro: fō’ sī). This illustrates that it is possible to have two centers of authority in one body. But just because something is possible does not prove it is biblical. The question then follows, ‘does the bible teach that there are two sources of authority in the church?’ And if this can be proven the next question must be, ‘how do these two authorities relate to one another in the normal functioning of the church?’ And then there is a third question, ‘is there a hierarchy among these authorities so that in crucial moments one authority trumps the other?’ Of course all these questions must be answered in the next post where this cooperative paradigm will be discussed in more detail. But to whet the appetite of the reader let me close with this question. Who has the ultimate authority in the U.S. Government? Is it the President? The Congress? The Supreme Court? One could rightly argue that all of them have authority and in the same breath could argue that none of them do. Perhaps the reason there has been a stable government in American for 250 years is because there is a healthy division of power, an elliptical model that finds the focus of authority in more than one place. Perhaps the forefathers who established our Constitution knew a little more about authority than many of our church leaders do today. Perhaps Jerusalem can learn something from Athens after all.