Church Government Models

[mike]

I don't know which model would describe conservative Mennonites. In some ways, since the leaders are chosen from among the church membership, they are representative, but not really, because once ordained, there is no further formal mechanism for the membership to inform the leadership. Because leaders are ordained for life. And the CM model is certainly not a democracy.

Conservative Mennonites rarely use the Direct Democracy approach. Appleman used to recommend this back in the day.
Wouldn't what you describe be a Totalitarian Democracy?

In a totalitarian democracy, do elected leaders serve for life?

[NedFlanders]

Some CM use Theocracy.

[Ken]

I don't know which model would describe conservative Mennonites. In some ways, since the leaders are chosen from among the church membership, they are representative, but not really, because once ordained, there is no further formal mechanism for the membership to inform the leadership. Because leaders are ordained for life. And the CM model is certainly not a democracy.

Conservative Mennonites rarely use the Direct Democracy approach. Appleman used to recommend this back in the day.
Wouldn't what you describe be a Totalitarian Democracy?

If we are using the terms from the first post, then governance by a small group of people would be an oligarchy.

[barnhart]

Models are just models. North Korea, China and the Soviet Union are/were democratic republics, at least on paper. What counts is the internal relationships. All models can be subverted into unhealthy tyrannies.

[Josh]

In our church women and men vote on ordinations, right down to freshly baptised 11 year olds girls.

Ordinations are effectively of a husband and wife together. It is very rare to ordain a single man, and if a wife reaches a certain threshold of being unable to serve or of sin, the husband will be “on the bench” and no longer be in active leadership.

I guess you could this is a matriomoniarchy…

[Ernie]

Models are just models. North Korea, China and the Soviet Union are/were democratic republics, at least on paper. What counts is the internal relationships. All models can be subverted into unhealthy tyrannies.

Correct. What we are looking at in this thread is functional governance.

[barnhart]

Models are just models. North Korea, China and the Soviet Union are/were democratic republics, at least on paper. What counts is the internal relationships. All models can be subverted into unhealthy tyrannies.

Correct. What we are looking at in this thread is functional governance.

From that perspective I would say most models will work as long as the international relationships are not violated and everyone stays invested. (Note: This may not apply beyond a size where relationships between leaders and congregants become less viable.)

I heard an interview where Tim Keller was asked if the reason he was able to plant, build and lead a mega church with it's various church plants without scandal was due to the presbyterian system of overlapping authority. He very quickly said no, the only thing that keeps leaders in check is a fear of God, everything else can be faked or manipulated.

[mike]

Models are just models. North Korea, China and the Soviet Union are/were democratic republics, at least on paper. What counts is the internal relationships. All models can be subverted into unhealthy tyrannies.

Correct. What we are looking at in this thread is functional governance.

From that perspective I would say most models will work as long as the international relationships are not violated and everyone stays invested. (Note: This may not apply beyond a size where relationships between leaders and congregants become less viable.)

I heard an interview where Tim Keller was asked if the reason he was able to plant, build and lead a mega church with it's various church plants without scandal was due to the presbyterian system of overlapping authority. He very quickly said no, the only thing that keeps leaders in check is a fear of God, everything else can be faked or manipulated.

I appreciate this. I don't believe there is a perfect system, although in my view some models are more biblical than others, and some work better than others. And some systems that may not be the most biblical in structure still seem to work when relationships are good and there is mutual respect and of course the fear of God as Keller said.

[Josh]

It should be noted that different personality types, different cultures, people from different backgrounds, etc. may indeed prefer differing governance models.

Our church in Nigeria seems to prefer a more authoritarian way of doing things than is the norm in our church. The membership and leaders there express concern that we do things the way we do them here. Conversely, the way they do things seems concerning to us.

In neighbouring Togo, the culture is very different and is less authoritarian.

There are marked differences between how our church works in Canada and in the United States. Neither model would work as well if imposed on the other.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I know of churches that basically operate as:

Direct Democracies
Representative Democracies
Democratic Republics
Totalitarian Democracies
Monarchies
Autocracies
Oligarchies
Puppet states

In each of the above, it is assumed that Jesus is the head of the church and that the Holy Spirit is working through the system.

What other models are you aware of?

What are some indicators that Jesus is truly the head, and that the Holy Spirit is indeed working through the system?

In many traditions among established reformed/evangelical/etc. groups/denominations, the church government can be said to be at least partly Technocratic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy).

The reason being that these churches require a doctorate in Theology or at least some form of higher education degree from a seminary. For example, Presbyterians have a church structure/governance model that they are named after, but those who want a place in that governmental structure must have a seminary degree.

A technocracy is a government where people with proven education and competence in their field are put in charge of governing that aspect of society. In the church, this amounts to basically saying that a ruling or preaching elder must have a higher-institution-of-learning certificate of studying "theology". The reformed-leaning churches tend to be way into their theology more than practice, so "studying theology" is their barrier for leadership.