Polity 1538. [–L. politia – Gr. politei,a
] 1. Civil order. b. Administration
of a state; civil government 1715. 2.a A particular form of political
organization 1597. b. An organized society; a state 1650.
Polity concerns organizational set-up, but is not limited to structural
matters alone. It also concerns “political” relationships within the
church—those relations where issues of authority, power, or control are
involved. Together, structure and leadership dynamics constitute polity, as
the term will be used in this short paper. Transition, sometimes slow and
sometimes swift, characterizes the movement of the people of God from Genesis
to Revelation. This is nowhere truer than in the area of their organization and
governance, or polity,
which in biblical times underwent numerous minor or even major modifications.
I. Time to reevaluate?
Change
is in the air, and so is much discussion about the way we conduct business. In
terms of polity, are we set up for success? Is it possible we’re holding to an
outmoded organizational model? Evaluation is part of responsible leadership. We
must remain open to new ideas and constructive criticism, because the task of
world evangelism is too important to relegate to mere fine-tuning of previous
strategies.
The truth is, we have been reevaluating
for quite some time, and have
come a long way from our more authoritarian days (’80s to early ’90s). As a
movement, all of us in the past bought into an overly authoritarian model of
leadership. I recall all too many reckless words uttered by myself, decisions I
made and pressured others to accept; I remember too many hurt people—hurt by
me. For years I’ve been trying to change my leadership style, and I am sure the
same is true for most of you reading this paper.
Yes, we have been moving towards very
positive change—in the direction of group leadership, consensus decision, and
so forth. With the establishment of church boards and elderships, as well as
through the emphasis on the need for personal involvement of older men in lives of church
leaders, the infrastructure for a new arrangement has already been laid down.
Sadly, familial failure in the lives of many top leaders has made the need for
a different approach all the more apparent. At any rate, everyone is trying to
change—and everyone is talking. In part we are putting our heads together
because the old way is not working so well anymore. Our growth rate has been
slowing for quite a few years.
Leaders are overloaded, yet instead of sharing the load with others, many hold
on to “control,” and end up unable to effectively serve as the
“super-pastor-preacher-administrator-organizer-motivator-husband-father-discipler-local
leaders” they feel they must be.
The Oxford
English Dictionary shows us that polity came into the English language
in the 1500s. Yet fifteen centuries earlier is the period on which we must now
focus—the first century—as we ask what the Bible says about church polity. It
is time to reevaluate. This will not be easy, but it must be done all
the same.
II. Is
there a biblical pattern, or not?
Many groups
claim to have discovered the magical model of organization. There are two
extremes to be avoided, two ends of the spectrum. Certainly, the Papists are
wrong, and yet there is an equally destructive error also to be avoided in
“congregational autonomy,” such as that claimed in the mainline Churches of
Christ (henceforth mCOC). We can be “cooked” at
either end of the spectrum—by UV or by IR. Surely it is better to remain in the
safer range of visible light!
It is a simple observation that the N.T.
churches did not operate with total autonomy, since they submitted to
the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The mCOC is wrong on
this point, and at any rate has an implicit political structure.
In
the N.T. era, apostles planted and organized churches. Quite possibly there
were overlapping spheres of influence (as when Paul writes to the Romans,
members of a church he did not plant). Church planters installed elderships and
then moved on, so the record would seem to indicate. So is there a pattern? Yes
and no.
A mistake I think I have made for many years is
in seeking a static model of church polity. (Is this from the old “patternism” we inherited during my years in the mCOC?) After teaching many classes, drawing many charts,
and seeking hard for the “pattern,” I believe I have been wrong all along. As I
now read the NT, the organizational setup seems to have been dynamic.
Situations changed, the church adapted accordingly. In our movement, this paper
maintains, we have held too long to an outmoded model. When we were few in
number (and nations), it was probably both effective and godly to operate in a
“one-man” leadership mode. Boards and committees are hardly needed to lead a
campus ministry, or a church planting of singles. Does the Bible not show us
that organization depends on the situation—size of the group, stage in life,
etc? The burden of proof is on those who would advocate a single, static model
for all churches at all times.
If there is any “pattern” in the N.T.,
perhaps it could be summed up in a few simple principles. These principles can
be understood to constitute the dynamic approach to polity of the early
Christians.
§
Evangelists plant churches, stay a few months or years, then
move on, preaching the word, winning the lost, and establishing new
churches. These men are effective speakers, and move confidently into new
territory. We need them desperately—even if we do not need them to function as
evangelist-elder-teacher-administrators!
§
Elders are stationary, in distinction to their more mobile
counterparts, the evangelists.
§
Elders are appointed after a relatively short period of time—say, a few years. The
evidence from Acts 14 and Titus does not indicate a long period—e.g. 8 or
10 years—before elderships were installed.
§
Elders oversee the local congregations. 1 Timothy shows it is
God’s will for the local church to be run by elders (presbyters, overseers) and
deacons (ministers).
There is no biblical evidence that evangelists are the ultimate leaders of
congregations—quite the opposite! Take as an example Paul’s farewell to the
leaders of the great Ephesian church, whom he sent
for and called to meet him in Miletus. Did he summon the
Regional Leaders? The evangelists? No, it was the elders. Why them?
Speculation could lead to many possible answers, but how about the simplest
answer? These were the men who had the greatest influence on the future of the
church in Ephesus.
§
Other ministers join the elders in administering the affairs
of the church. The ministers (diakonoi)
probably include a range of positions of service.
§
The arrangement is flexible. There is a shift from
one-man or small-team leadership at the planting stage to governance by
eldership after a few years. The Bible never says how many elders there must
be, nor how rigidly the character qualifications of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are to
be insisted upon, though we are right to steer to the conservative side of
interpretation and keep the standard high.
§
Dynamics among evangelists, elders, and other leaders implicitly
support a system of checks and balances.
§
In short, this model is dynamic, not static.
III. How
did the model develop in the N.T. church?
Jesus
appointed Peter as the head guy (Matthew 16), and he was certainly the chief
spokesman on the day of Pentecost. With the keys with which he was entrusted,
he opened the door into the church, the most visible expression of God’s
kingdom on earth. Peter was given “the keys,” to be sure, but this did not make
him owner of the kingdom. One man has keys to the house he rents,
another keys to the house he owns. Peter was but a steward, a “renter.”
No one owns the house but God. Peter was a catalyst—through his spirituality,
preaching, and leadership, God “jump started” the church. In those earlier
days, it was good that there was a clear leader at the top—a “fired up”
leader was able to put some fire in the bones of the people of God, much
needed.
Yet the one-leader model of Acts 2 soon morphed
into a sort of two-leader plan in Acts 3-8, as Peter and John apparently led
together. By the time of Galatians 2:9 (15 years into the movement) and the
Jerusalem Council (slightly later), there were three leaders (“pillars”) in
Jerusalem, though it’s far from clear that they exercised control over
the entire movement.
In fact, James seems to be the president, whereas Peter holds more of a
missionary role. And as we read through Acts, we get the sense that it is God,
through the Holy Spirit, who is “calling the shots,” not any one individual
[Peter]. When a decision must be made, the leaders confer—not to validate the
decision of the lead guy, but to sense and follow the will of God’s Spirit.
Regardless of which date church historians ultimately assign
to “the beginning of the movement,” we are certainly well past the “Acts 15”
point, the 15-year mark. By that time the N.T. church had no one clear leader.
And yet the word was being effectively spread all over the Mediterranean world.
The ugly power struggles that would affect the church in the mid- to late
second century were still a long way off. There was no single leader over the
worldwide N.T. church.
Reviewing the record, we find:
·
Gospels: 1
man (Jesus) leads his group
·
Acts: 1 man (Peter) is
originally chief spokesman for the apostles. Soon, Peter and John seem to be
co-leading the fledgling church. Within a few years, the triumvirate consists
of Peter, James, and John. The apostle Paul respects the Jerusalem church
leadership, yet is in no way subordinate.
·
Letters:
Paul
is a church planter and master organizer, but never once does he claim to “lead
the movement.” (If ever there was a candidate for head guy, Paul would fit the
bill.) The 21 epistles, as well as Revelation, never mention a “movement
leader.” Surely this fact makes it easier to remember that it is Christ who is
head of the church.
·
Postapostolic times: Not until the papacy begins to
develop is there a clear “movement leader.” (Yet he was rejected by both the
Church of the East and the Orthodox churches.)
IV. What
about succession?
There
was no explicit plan for replacing the “Rock” to whom the keys of the kingdom
were initially given. James the brother of Jesus may well have replaced Peter,
in Jerusalem at least, though this is hard to prove.
Perhaps Peter did not preside at the Jerusalem Council because he was so
personally involved in the issues. In fact the only “succession” suggested by
the NT is that the original church-planters (evangelists or apostles) in
function were “succeeded” by overseers (elders). Is this the “succession” we
ought to focus our attention upon?
Yes, God’s people will always need strong
leadership, but not necessarily one strong leader. We must question
the “One man, One Message, One Movement” model. It is far from clear that a coalition
of leaders from around the kingdom could not just as effectively “lead the
movement” as a single, charismatic individual. Of course it is God who is our
true leader.
V. What is
our present polity?
Our present
system can be summarized as follows:
o
Evangelists
oversee the local congregation.
o
Higher
level evangelists oversee these evangelists (GSLs)—and
even higher level evangelists oversee these evangelist (WSLs).
o
Elders
assist in a “shepherding” capacity, serving under the evangelist. The
elders in turn are just beginning to be organized on a GS, WS, and
movement-wide level.
o
Church
Boards, though legally accountable for the official actions of the church
leadership, are generally expected to follow the direction of the lead
evangelist—to implement his policies.
VI. How did we get here?
In the mCOC, elders—or the “men’s business meeting,” in their
absence—hired, fired, and oversaw (and often overlooked) the evangelist, or
“pulpit minister.” In the mCOC, elderships often
embodied unspiritual attitudes, defended the lukewarm, and threw many obstacles
in the path of the evangelist who wanted to see the congregation move
forward—especially evangelistically. There was, predictably, a reaction against
the elder-over-evangelist polity. This frustration is a significant reason for
the movement’s eventual break with the mCOC.
Furthermore, as the ICOC launched new congregations, too young to have
elderships, they were (understandably) led by young evangelists. I believe there was an overreaction against
the notion of eldership. Had the mCOC elders been
zealous, driven, and led lives worthy of imitation, it is questionable whether
the preachers would have coveted full leadership of the church.
And yet this is not to say that
circumnavigation of elder authority was always our attitude. In the
early days of Boston, the elders’ lives were indeed
exemplary. Unity was forged, and the eldership functioned. Decisions affecting
the Boston Church or the fledgling movement emerged
from joint discussion, prayer, and collaboration between elders and
evangelists. Many brothers expressed desire to become elders one
day—including many of our present WSLs.
When, a decade after 1979, our Kingdom Missions Evangelist
moved to Los Angeles, something began to change. In time, fewer and fewer
brothers were saying, “I hope one day to become an elder.” The role of the
elder—now often frustrated by a sense of unease about the direction of the
church and the negative effects of “pushing the members” on the spiritual
health of the congregation—was held less in high regard than before. Conflicts
between church leaders (evangelists) and elders (the “overseers”) became more
and more common. A number of elderships collapsed, for a variety of reasons. To
sum up:
o
There
was a rejection of the elder-over-evangelist model, due to the lack of
spirituality in mCOC elderships.
o
Most
new congregations did not work towards establishing elderships (considered more
or less optional).
o
The
role of the elder began to fall into low esteem. (This is changing now,
however.)
VII. Elder
over evangelist, or vice versa?
Years ago, we
taught quite plainly that the evangelist was to raise up an eldership under
which, after their appointment, he would serve. Not surprisingly, many
people (me included) found it strange that the evangelist would yield his
authority to the elder whom he would now serve under, despite the fact
that the evangelist was still leading the church. In effect, and in theory, the
elder was given the responsibility (the oversight) yet without the authority.
This is highly paradoxical, at best. The contradiction arises because, after
installation of an eldership, the evangelist does not step aside and let them
lead!
Our assumption—and this must be
tested!—has been that elders are to serve under evangelists, even though
publicly we stated that they served over them. Why must this assumption
be examined?
·
This
is not the teaching of the Bible.
·
An
“overseer” oversees, just as much as an evangelist evangelizes and a teacher
teaches. The overseer is the “boss”—if oversight as a word has any literal
significance.
·
A
“shepherd” leads his flock (John 10). But how can he be said to lead the flock
when it is the evangelist who is leading the charge?
·
While
apostles exercised an international role, they were inspired by the Spirit and
trained by Jesus. To some extent they were over the elders. (But, in the
WSL position, have we recreated the role of the apostle?)
In churches
where evangelists and elders worked side-by-side, it is not completely clear
(in the Bible) that either one was “over” the other. Rather, words like cooperation,
collaboration, and camaraderie come to mind.
VIII. ON
Hierarchy
Are
we overly “hierarchical,” as the critics claim? It is eerie to recall my
original reaction when I read about Ignatius of Antioch—the famous bishop of
the early 2nd century who urged the authority of the bishop over
other leaders and launched the church on its long and tortuous route to the Vatican. I thought—as many of
us may have thought—“We will never go that way,” or “We must never go that
way.” I even taught against the very model of leadership we have come to
embrace—the one-man leadership model, echelon on echelon, an ever-growing
network of accountability—for concern that we could slip into the Patristic-era
superstructures (and super-problems) of the proto-Catholic Church. This is not
to argue against organization. The various echelons, which reflected the
geopolitics of the Old World, are understandable enough. It makes sense to
divide and subdivide along national, geographical, and civic lines. The real
problem with the RC church is the failure to implement biblical relationships.
Rather than a collegial network of friends, through whom the Spirit freely
moves and guides the church, a lineal arrangement prevails. Things are
accomplished by authority and position rather than by consensus and friendship.
To be honest about our international
organization, we have at least partially recapitulated the organization of the
Catholic Church of the 3rd or 4th century! (Again, this
is not all bad.) They had the Bishop of Rome—soon to be a full-fledged pope. In
obedience to him were his bishops—the chief of whom were designated
archbishops. In relationships, we really have little in common with the RC
church, but in polity we are beginning to resemble them. Instead of priests,
bishops, archbishops and pope, we have evangelists, GSLs,
WSLs, and a Kingdom Missions Evangelist (or “Leader
of WSLs”). Just as the bishop oversaw a group of
churches, we have GSLs. Just as archbishops oversaw
the GSLs, we have WSLs.
Yes, there must be a balance between autonomy
and hierarchy, authority and friendship. Leadership is of God, yet we must
ponder which leadership roles are essential.
IX. What
roles are key at the congregational level?
The
five-item list of Eph 4:11, once the foundational
positions of apostle and prophet are taken away (Eph 2:20), becomes a three-item list:
§
Evangelists
§
Elders
§
Teachers
All
three roles/functions are much needed today: evangelists (church planters),
elders (those who actually oversee the churches), and teachers (who work with
elders and evangelists to ground members in the faith). This is not to say that
one person might not embody more than one role or function, but the larger the
congregation, the greater the need for diversity and for a group of qualified
individuals, as opposed to one “quarterback” or “general.” These three
positions are the teaching positions of the church; these men preach and
teach, bringing the Word to the people. In addition, quite naturally there are
other biblical positions to consider:
§
Administrators (1 Cor 12)
§
Women’s roles, such as the order of widows (1 Tim 5)
§
Various sorts of ministers (diakonoi
or deacons)
§
Those who focus on serving the poor (Acts 6)—our “HOPE
coordinators”
At
the risk of utter redundancy, let us revisit the job description of the first
three:
§
Evangelists: Plant churches; move frequently; motivate the troops.
Their ultimate goal is to hand over the church to qualified overseers who will
perpetuate the work and mission of the congregation while attending to its
spiritual needs.
§
Elders (overseers): Determine the organization and program of the
local church; as shepherds, they respond to the spiritual needs of the flock.
They do not work in opposition to the evangelists—assuming the evangelists are
not usurping the elders’ biblical authority as overseers. All leaders work
together—through relationship, more than authority—sharing their gifts, pooling
their talents, and showing mutual respect as they approach issues in true
teamwork. (No “rubber-stamping,” and no one single person ought to have “veto
power.”)
§
Teachers: Teach the Bible. There is a difference in
emphasis: Evangelists preach to the lost (as they establish churches) or to
members; elders’ teaching focuses more on domestic issues and refuting false
doctrine.
X. Where
should we go from here?
(1) We
ought to reexamine nomenclature. How biblical is it? How accurate? How
helpful in linking, in people’s minds, the function of the individual with his
biblical responsibilities? Our own traditions, just as easily as those in the
denominational world, can easily obscure God’s original intent.
We might rename the leadership title of the WSL; leading a WS is too much
pressure on one individual, or couple. Instead of “WSL,” perhaps “WSM” (WS
Minister) would be more appropriate. “WSE” (WS Evangelist) would work also,
esp. if WSE became “WSO” (WS Overseer).
(2)
Instead of the single-man-at-the-top model, consider the benefits of group
leadership. This does not negate the principle of leadership—i.e. the needs
for a prime motivator, a chairman, or a president—but it does entail a
different mode of operation from that which we are accustomed to.
(3) We
must reexamine the role of the elder. The question to be answered: Does
the N.T. teach that elders are to lead the local congregation? Are our elders
fulfilling their biblical job description?
(4) Discussion.
Our discussions must not be constrained merely by the “bottom lines” of
numerical growth and financial giving, but by the Scriptures. (What does the
Bible say?) There are quite a few implications of such a view of church
leadership. All involve a power shift. Will those who are currently
exercising too much control, wielding too much authority, be willing to share
with others? Here are some of the key areas for discussion:
§
Over-functioning
of the evangelist, GSL, WSL, and under-functioning of the elder, GSE, WSE.
§
“Tenure”
for senior church leaders.
§
“Chairmanship”
or rotational leadership.
§
The
need to decentralize, as well as to review financial obligations. We may need
an inspiring “L.A.”, but we do not want a “Vatican.”
§
What
consensus leadership really means. Is it a “marriage” where the elder
must submit to the evangelist should a disagreement arise, or is it more of a friendship—after
the analogy of Barnabas and Saul (before the rift!), or David and Jonathan.
§
The
benefit of a system of “checks and balances” in church polity. Analogy: three
governmental branches—executive, legislative, judicial. When any one branch
becomes too powerful, government becomes ineffective.
§
How
and the extent to which any changes in polity should be explained to the
membership at large.
concluding
thoughts
Brothers,
it is my conviction—and I am not alone in this—that our churches are hurting.
In large measure they are hurting because those making the decisions that
affect us all—those who drive us—are often not strong in a number of key
areas—the areas of family, administration, shepherding, biblical knowledge,
long-term planning, legal issues, etc. That’s why they need elders,
administrators, teachers, legal experts and older men involved in their lives,
holding up their arms, watching their backs, nurturing their families, and in
every way helping to ease the load they are currently bearing.
Some WSLs, who at one time
themselves aspired to eldership, are now pondering whether the character/family
requirements of 1 Timothy 3 really apply to evangelists after all. Yet the
answer is not to lower the bar! It is to delve into the Word, with minds,
hearts, and Bibles opened. We mustn’t assume we are rightly directing our own
steps (Jer 10:23). It is time to radically reconsider—to
reconsider whether we are set up in accordance with biblical principles of
polity. Are we hiding from the obvious truth? The slow-down in the movement is
a function of some rather serious imbalances in the areas of leadership and
authority. We have a choice. If we make the necessary changes to our polity,
our movement will remain united, and “nothing will be impossible for us.”
Leaders will lead within their appropriate spheres of influence and using their
God-given gifts. We can and will evangelize the world, because the troops are
committed; disillusionment has not set in, despite all our shortcomings. Moreover, credibility of the top level of ICOC
leadership is still high. The time is ripe.
Yet if we
delay, and end up losing either fire or unity, we will have lost the
opportunity
