Church Government Models

[Ernie]

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.

Interesting. Plain Anabaptists certainly don't have anything like this.

Is there a name for governments that require leaders to have a certain level of moral character such as is listed for elders and deacons in the Bible?

[Josh]

Is there a name for governments that require leaders to have a certain level of moral character such as is listed for elders and deacons in the Bible?

In practical terms, most democratic governments don't put requirements on their highest offices of the land due to the problem that... someone else would have to decide who qualifies. And then that person is, in effect, in charge of getting to decide who can occupy the highest office of the land. In a democracy, the people are allowed to decide, including deciding what level of moral character they feel is needed.

[Neto]

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.

My opinion is that this freedom to have diversity in governance structures is a good thing, and this is something we were taught in missiology courses in Bible college. (In the secular political realm, I think this is why American efforts to "export democracy" generally fail, because there is this attitude of "What works here is the best, and maybe the only way that will work." And it simply isn't that way.)

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Interesting. Plain Anabaptists certainly don't have anything like this.

Is there a name for governments that require leaders to have a certain level of moral character such as is listed for elders and deacons in the Bible?

Josh said it pretty well; this would be hard to do democratically, for the same reason it would be hard to do in any other structural umbrella: morality is subjective. What qualifies as "moral character" is subjective. This is why there are delineated requirements in the epistles. Paul could've just wrote "elders have to be like Jesus" and left it at that.

Theoretically, medevial Christendom under the Holy Roman Empire and afterward operated under a sort of moral system like this. Kings were given absolute rule over their domains, but the church (or maybe specifically the pope) could have the authority to denounce them if they proved themselves immoral. But considering the amount of adultery, subterfuge, warmongering, and backstabbing that the royals engaged in, I'd say this system was a failure when implemented in earthly government.

[Sudsy]

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

Imo, one indicator would be the local church is growing in new converts to following Jesus from unchurched backgrounds. If this isn't happening, my guess is that church is too much about churchianity and not Christianity.

[ohio jones]

Theoretically, medevial Christendom under the Holy Roman Empire and afterward operated under a sort of moral system like this. Kings were given absolute rule over their domains, but the church (or maybe specifically the pope) could have the authority to denounce them if they proved themselves immoral. But considering the amount of adultery, subterfuge, warmongering, and backstabbing that the royals engaged in, I'd say this system was a failure when implemented in earthly government.

Considering the amount of adultery fornication, subterfuge, warmongering, and backstabbing the popes engaged in during that time period, I'd say this system was also a failure when implemented in ecclesial government.