Various questions

[John Bunyan]

What are the main sources of disagreement over church polity? What verses and reasons are cited in favor and against congregational, presbyterian and episcopal ecclesiologies? When were they first defended and/or applied? Is there scriptural basis to believe that one polity should be favored over the others? Was there any other kind of church polity in the past - ignoring groups like quakers who deny the very need of a organized church?


Lastly: Where can I find some good online resources on this subject??

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perhaps the main disagreement concerning polity is whether or not the Bible prescribes a polity. To some degree, the prime defenders of a particular polity as *the* biblical church government are Confessional Presbyterians, and I'm not simply saying this because it happens to be my conviction. Presbyterians (by name!) demonstrate their peculiar, jus divinum (divine right) understanding of the place of polity in church-life.

Lutherans are historically pragmatic. Anglicans follow the hierarchical model inherited from Rome, and defend it primarily from the traditional angle, considering it the expedient and wise judgment of the church.

Congregationalists, insofar as they follow the Presbyterian model, generally seek biblical precedent; however the thrust of congregationalism is via negativa, by which the least amount of governance is affirmed. Congregationalism does not have a significant need for what I would term a positive, highly developed doctrine of church government. The locus of power is in the individual and the aggregate individuals (democracy). These elect and depose leaders, according to more or less biblical criteria, depending on the church.

Because congregationalism is almost exclusively interested in the limitation of church-power, by its very nature there is not much need for arguments beyond appeals to the fact and character of leadership as things found in the Bible, or in history. The practical reality, then, of congregational churches shows itself in different ways that such churches will be "like" various connectional type churches at their congregational-level. The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways.

I'm not saying that there exists no books, articles, or essays that give a reasoned or biblical defense of congregationalism or of episcopacy. But in the nature of the case, the episcopal type make more of pragmatic arguments, and the congregational make more of negative arguments (to oppose the episcopal claims, and to oppose the presbyterians for half-measures).

The Reformation of the church, generally, brought into focus the question of church-government. Papal abuses demanded it, and it was Luther who self-described his eye-opening realization that the pope could not be appealed to for a solution to the doctrinal problems, because the papacy was the root of (many) problems. The strict, hierarchical form of church-government had been adopted across the ancient Roman world, in increasing measure over the centuries (especially from the 2nd to the 6th), as secular, Empirical authority was aped; as apostolic-institution was superseded by, and reinterpreted along, man-made politics.

For general discussion of the issues, and biblical defense of the Presbyterian conviction, I recommend:
1) Thomas iWtherow, "The Apostolic Church: Which Is It?" Which is the apostolic church?: An inquiry at the oracles of God as to ... - Thomas Witherow - Google Books
2) Douglas Bannerman, "The Scripture Doctrine of the Church" The Scripture doctrine of the church - David Douglas Bannerman - Google Books

 

[John Bunyan]

Your answer was very helpful, Rev. Buchanan, but could you clarify what you mean by "The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways."? I always thought that, in a very simple level, church polity went from almost less hierarchy in one side (congregationalism) to more on the other (episcopacy), with presbyterianism in the middle. How is a congregational church like the episcopacy?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Amazon.com: Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government (Counterpoints: Church Life) (9780310246077): Steven B. Cowan, Stanley N. Gundry, Peter Toon, L. Roy Taylor, Paige Patterson, Sam E. Waldron: Books

The above is a half way decent book on the subject.

You can also look at this.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/an-answer-to-jus-divinum/

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Your answer was very helpful, Rev. Buchanan, but could you clarify what you mean by "The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways."? I always thought that, in a very simple level, church polity went from almost less hierarchy in one side (congregationalism) to more on the other (episcopacy), with presbyterianism in the middle. How is a congregational church like the episcopacy?

Churches that practice congregational government will often have elders, and if not elders, then they will have deacons who function as elders. In addition, Baptist churches for instance often will belong to larger associations on the local, state, and national levels. While these associations do not have any actual power over the individual churches, they do function as a means for cooperation in areas such as missions, and will also provide support to the local congregations in matters such as pulpit supply, etc. In this way, there is some degree of hierarchy above the individual church itself, much like Presbyterianism, but without possessing any actual power over said congregation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Your answer was very helpful, Rev. Buchanan, but could you clarify what you mean by "The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways."? I always thought that, in a very simple level, church polity went from almost less hierarchy in one side (congregationalism) to more on the other (episcopacy), with presbyterianism in the middle. How is a congregational church like the episcopacy?

I'm certainly not going to speak for every Baptist, least of all the many principled men on this board. But I know there are many congregational, or perhaps more descriptively independent, churches in which the Pastor is *the* authority in that church. I'm speaking here of churches that do not have much/anything in the way of lay-leadership, as well as many that do in the form of deacon-boards, and sometimes even elders. There is no one who is "higher" than he is, that man controls the offering plate, he hires and fires staff, he is IN CHARGE. Yes, there is the sense that the people had a "say" when they voted the man in. And once he's in, he's in. It is his baby to run and make good. But it is especially obvious in churches that are led by the "founder" or "planter."

In this way, we are looking at a church that is extraordinarily similar in structure to an episcopal ministry. The main difference being: it is an episcopate of one. The bishop is alone, atop this miniature pyramid. He is not accountable to peers; he may be accountable to the congregation, if they could get things together and engineer a coup, or the man sins, and his conduct aggrieves the majority. Otherwise, the office is inviolate. He might lose his congregation, or his staff and leadership team--they run/walk/trickle out. They could withhold their offerings and weaken the man, if they got together. They could try to force him to resign or otherwise leave "voluntarily." But the man is THE BISHOP. And there is no appeal outside of the congregation. In some churches, his decision can force a "troublemaker" right out the door.

Evidently, this is does not happen everywhere; it is less likely to happen in an independent church where there are elders *AND* they understand their role. But frankly, the Reformed Baptist model is the exception, rather than the norm in American independency. And the head Pastor of such a church wields an inordinate amount of personal, ecclesiastical power.

 

[John Bunyan]

Your answer was very helpful, Rev. Buchanan, but could you clarify what you mean by "The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways."? I always thought that, in a very simple level, church polity went from almost less hierarchy in one side (congregationalism) to more on the other (episcopacy), with presbyterianism in the middle. How is a congregational church like the episcopacy?

I'm certainly not going to speak for every Baptist, least of all the many principled men on this board. But I know there are many congregational, or perhaps more descriptively independent, churches in which the Pastor is *the* authority in that church. I'm speaking here of churches that do not have much/anything in the way of lay-leadership, as well as many that do in the form of deacon-boards, and sometimes even elders. There is no one who is "higher" than he is, that man controls the offering plate, he hires and fires staff, he is IN CHARGE. Yes, there is the sense that the people had a "say" when they voted the man in. And once he's in, he's in. It is his baby to run and make good. But it is especially obvious in churches that are led by the "founder" or "planter."

In this way, we are looking at a church that is extraordinarily similar in structure to an episcopal ministry. The main difference being: it is an episcopate of one. The bishop is alone, atop this miniature pyramid. He is not accountable to peers; he may be accountable to the congregation, if they could get things together and engineer a coup, or the man sins, and his conduct aggrieves the majority. Otherwise, the office is inviolate. He might lose his congregation, or his staff and leadership team--they run/walk/trickle out. They could withhold their offerings and weaken the man, if they got together. They could try to force him to resign or otherwise leave "voluntarily." But the man is THE BISHOP. And there is no appeal outside of the congregation. In some churches, his decision can force a "troublemaker" right out the door.

Evidently, this is does not happen everywhere; it is less likely to happen in an independent church where there are elders *AND* they understand their role. But frankly, the Reformed Baptist model is the exception, rather than the norm in American independency. And the head Pastor of such a church wields an inordinate amount of personal, ecclesiastical power.

Oh, now I see what you meant.

 

[Pilgrim]

Your answer was very helpful, Rev. Buchanan, but could you clarify what you mean by "The congregationalist church will be like presbyterianism in some things, or like episcopacy in other ways."? I always thought that, in a very simple level, church polity went from almost less hierarchy in one side (congregationalism) to more on the other (episcopacy), with presbyterianism in the middle. How is a congregational church like the episcopacy?

I'm certainly not going to speak for every Baptist, least of all the many principled men on this board. But I know there are many congregational, or perhaps more descriptively independent, churches in which the Pastor is *the* authority in that church. I'm speaking here of churches that do not have much/anything in the way of lay-leadership, as well as many that do in the form of deacon-boards, and sometimes even elders. There is no one who is "higher" than he is, that man controls the offering plate, he hires and fires staff, he is IN CHARGE. Yes, there is the sense that the people had a "say" when they voted the man in. And once he's in, he's in. It is his baby to run and make good. But it is especially obvious in churches that are led by the "founder" or "planter."

In this way, we are looking at a church that is extraordinarily similar in structure to an episcopal ministry. The main difference being: it is an episcopate of one. The bishop is alone, atop this miniature pyramid. He is not accountable to peers; he may be accountable to the congregation, if they could get things together and engineer a coup, or the man sins, and his conduct aggrieves the majority. Otherwise, the office is inviolate. He might lose his congregation, or his staff and leadership team--they run/walk/trickle out. They could withhold their offerings and weaken the man, if they got together. They could try to force him to resign or otherwise leave "voluntarily." But the man is THE BISHOP. And there is no appeal outside of the congregation. In some churches, his decision can force a "troublemaker" right out the door.

Evidently, this is does not happen everywhere; it is less likely to happen in an independent church where there are elders *AND* they understand their role. But frankly, the Reformed Baptist model is the exception, rather than the norm in American independency. And the head Pastor of such a church wields an inordinate amount of personal, ecclesiastical power.

There are "Baptist Popes." And the flip side of that there are churches that view the pastor as little more than an employee who is to marry them and bury them. If he makes waves, HE will be the one hitting the street. This happens when you have deacons and/or one or two prominent families essentially running a church. This is more frequently found in smaller churches. (I have seen something like the latter case with some Presbyterian churches too, with one friend having to resign as pastor in a similar situation.)

In most cases I don't think you'll find many cases of these extremes in Calvinistic Baptist churches, although some current and former "Popes" could be named to be sure.

More to the point of the OP, good initial resources to consult would be Systematic Theologies by theologians of various persuasions. There are a lot of resources on the Founders site. Dagg's "Treatise on Church Order" is a classic work. I can't remember ever consulting Boyce's Systematic Theology on that subject but I don't think there would be much difference. Nine Marks is an organization led by Mark Dever that produces resources promoting elder-led congregationalism. Pastor Don Elbourne has a lot of historic Southern Baptist works posted here perhaps most notably, Baptist Why and Why Not. The Reformed Reader has a massive amount of historic Baptist material as well. But it is from a much wider variety of perspectives than the preceding two links.

 

[Pilgrim]

Another book similar to the one PuritanCovenanter posted (and another worthy entrant) is Amazon.com: Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (9780805425901): Chad Owen Brand, R. Stanton Norman, Daniel Akin, Jr. James Leo Garrett, Robert L. Reymond, James R. White, Paul F. M. Zahl: Books

Both books include Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Single Elder (or Pastor) led and Plural Elder led congregational perspectives. This one also includes a meticulously documented chapter on the "Congregation-Led" church by Dr. James Leo Garrett. My guess is that few if any on this board will endorse that perspective, but if anyone is to be convinced of that point of view, I would think that Dr. Garrett is the most likely contemporary writer to make a persuasive case.