Biblical Church Government

[tjm3383]

I was just involved in a discussion on Facebook about what is the biblical church government. One Gentleman argued that the Episcopal form of church government is the most biblical. I am Presbyterian and I think Elders are consistently mentioned throughout Scripture. So what is the most Biblical form of church government?

 

[MLCOPE2]

A plurality of elders is the biblical form. How that fleshes out will differ between baptists who choose to maintain some sort of autonomy and presbyterians who choose a more elaborate system of checks and balances. But multiple elders is the biblical pattern.

 

[au5t1n]

and Presbyterian.

 

[MLCOPE2]

and Presbyterian.

(obviously, RPCNA here) but mostly wanted to stress the multiple elder rule aspect in order to avoid unnecessary debate.

 

[tjm3383]

Here is the text from this gentlemans post:

This is a true saying: If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt at teaching;
This is not "Elder" .The word "" translated from "Episkopoi".
Titus:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou ... See Moreshouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not quick to anger, not given to wine, not violent, not given to filthy lucre;
Same here as elsewhere- such as A 'Bishop" may be the husband of one wife " etc.
Here is the rub - there is no record of any church that did not receive Apostolic Orders by way of laying on of hands such as St Paul to both Titus and Timothy. For whatever reason at the Reformation for breaking with Apostolicity- it was done openly, translations started to rise to cover up "Episkopoi" as "elder" or Overseer etc but they are not universal to early manuscripts , the Scripture or outside documents witnessing the offices of Deacon, Bishop and then Presbyter/Priest.
Ignatius describes the office inn 112 in this manner: "Avoid Divisions as the beginnings of evils. All of you follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ Himself". Now this may sound strange to modern ears but remember the Church was started by Jesus- he gave authority to the Apostles by laying hands on them and breathing the Holy Spirit on them and giving them the authority to retain and forgive sins and bind and loose . This they did and we know who they ordained.

 

[au5t1n]

He is playing semantics games. Bishop does not mean the same thing in the Bible as it does in modern episcopalian government. Bishop and presbyter are used synonymously in the Bible.

It's worth noting, though, that there is a "high Presbyterian" tradition which recognizes a distinct function of a Bishop as a chief elder, so to speak, and it is much more like what the early church had than episcopalianism.

 

[tjm3383]

Would the difference between Teaching Elder and Ruling Elder be an example of "High Presbyterian" tradition?

 

[au5t1n]

Similar, I think.

 

[MRC]

A very helpful look at this topic is Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch. He argues for a plurality of elders, where bishop, elder and pastor all refer to the same office. Stauch is from the baptist camp and so therefore argues against a binding authority beyond the local congregation (autonomy of the local church), which the Presbyterians (and I) would strongly disagree with. However, I have not yet seen a more thorough exegesis on the subject of elder in the church and I would suggest this text is of great value to Baptists and Presbyterians alike.

 

[dudley]

Definitely the Presbyterian, the bible refers in the new testament to the "Elders" and the Episcapalians have a church form of Government which is modeled on the form of the Roman catholic church which corrupted the governmental structure of Christ's church.

 

[raekwon]

Definitely the Presbyterian, the bible refers in the new testament to the "Elders" and the Episcapalians have a church form of Government which is modeled on the form of the Roman catholic church which corrupted the governmental structure of Christ's church.

I have a tough time saying that what we call the "presbyterian" system of government (which necessarily includes the graded courts of sessions, presbyteries, and the general assembly) is any more biblical than, say, an autonomous church with a plurality of elders which reports to no higher courts.

Wiser? Maybe. More biblical? Nah.

 

[Scott1]

You may find helpful a book, Who runs the church- 4 views on church government
(link to on-line reading)
Who runs the church?: 4 views on ... - Google Books

A few things have become more clear to me about what we believe about church government:

1) Deacons and elders (bishops) are part of it.

2) It's very important to qualify those who will carefully handle authoritatively teaching the Word and administering the sacraments

3) Its details are not all sufficiently described in Scripture to insist on them. In many cases, we draw inferences, in others we don't have even a clear basis from which to draw inference.

4) What we confess, and practice has a big impact on how the covenant community functions

I really appreciate how the presbyterian system has orderly mechanisms to resolve disputes and check power.

 

[rbcbob]

I think Samuel Miller in The Ruling Elder demonstrated that from the early church onward churches were ruled by elders. This was true across several traditions and over many centuries.

 

[au5t1n]

Definitely the Presbyterian, the bible refers in the new testament to the "Elders" and the Episcapalians have a church form of Government which is modeled on the form of the Roman catholic church which corrupted the governmental structure of Christ's church.

I have a tough time saying that what we call the "presbyterian" system of government (which necessarily includes the graded courts of sessions, presbyteries, and the general assembly) is any more biblical than, say, an autonomous church with a plurality of elders which reports to no higher courts.

Wiser? Maybe. More biblical? Nah.

We might appeal to the fact that in the NT church, multiple congregations existed in a single city, yet they seem to have functioned as a single citywide church with common eldership. This is similar to a presbytery, though admittedly not identical. At the very least, we can infer that the church was viewed more organically than in a model of independent, autonomous local congregations.