Church Government Models

[Ernie]

A thread to discuss church government models...

[Ernie]

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?

[barnhart]

In your list do episcopal and presbyterian both fall under representative democracy.

[Ernie]

In your list do episcopal and presbyterian both fall under representative democracy.

I'm not familiar with how they work.

[barnhart]

In your list do episcopal and presbyterian both fall under representative democracy.

I'm not familiar with how they work.

Episcopal is rule by a body of bishops. Presbyterian falls between that and congregationalism, where the ruling body is composed of non ordained elders appointed by the congregations.

[ohio jones]

In your list do episcopal and presbyterian both fall under representative democracy.

I'm not familiar with how they work.

Episcopal is rule by a body of bishops. Presbyterian falls between that and congregationalism, where the ruling body is composed of non ordained elders appointed by the congregations.

They might be described as oligarchy and polyarchy, respectively.

[Ken]

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?

Some churches seem to operate more or less by anarchy.

The Quaker method of governance by consensus doesn't really fit into any of your above categories. It is not direct democracy. Consensus is something different.

[barnhart]

The Quaker method of governance by consensus doesn't really fit into any of your above categories. It is not direct democracy. Consensus is something different.

I suspect churches truly move forward only by consensus regardless of the governance model. There must be a common vision and those who disagree must feel they have been heard out, accomodations made and the process was not rushed.

[Ernie]

The Quaker method of governance by consensus doesn't really fit into any of your above categories. It is not direct democracy. Consensus is something different.

I suspect churches truly move forward only by consensus regardless of the governance model. There must be a common vision and those who disagree must feel they have been heard out, accomodations made and the process was not rushed.

So when they move forward without consensus, they are actually not moving forward. Is that what you are saying?

[Heirbyadoption]

The Quaker method of governance by consensus doesn't really fit into any of your above categories. It is not direct democracy. Consensus is something different.

I suspect churches truly move forward only by consensus regardless of the governance model. There must be a common vision and those who disagree must feel they have been heard out, accomodations made and the process was not rushed.

So when they move forward without consensus, they are actually not moving forward. Is that what you are saying?

Coming from a denominational stream (Brethren, Schwarzenau) where consensus has long been our attempted model (interestingly enough, derived in part from the Quakers), I can personally attest that, yes, moving forward without consensus does indeed fail to move forward, and ultimately leads to partial consensus / overrule, which in turn leads to some level of enforced adherence rather than resulting in willing submission by those who might not be in full consensus...