Church Government Models

[Ken]

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?

I'm not an expert in Quaker governance. I just don't feel like it fits neatly into the categories that you listed. I think that they are actually doing something different.

[MaxPC]

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?

I am uncertain as to the definitions that are being used for these terms and the background of those who apply them. Hence the following is my own perspective:

In the 2000 year history of Catholic/Eastern Churches, I see an evolution of organisational structures, most of which were copied from secular structures. In the need to protect the Deposit of the Faith (central teachings of Jesus and the Bible), there have been a number of structures created so that this teaching is not changed willy nilly. In the present era, the RCC is attempting to keep a balance between collegial and hierarchical structures. Because we are all flawed humans, it will always be an ongoing effort.

[Josh]

The RCC is an episcopal model and explicitly is not a democracy. Regular members have no actual rights to determine much of anything about the church.

Other episcopal models are similar such as United Methodists.

[MaxPC]

The topic is interesting to be sure but it can only be addressed by personal opinions and perspectives, none of which are absolutes. Does this promote the Gospel when we debate in circles and past each other? I find it preferable to address effective means to spread the Gospel. God is quite adaptable to the use of various avenues I find.

[mike]

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?

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. This list seems to apply to civil governments but not so well to church models.

[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?

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

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. This list seems to apply to civil governments but not so well to church models.

I know women don't serve in leadership positions in most/all? CM churches. But do women typically participate in congregational decision-making that involves voting? I honestly don't know the answer so I'm asking.

The correct word for an organization run by men is "patriarchy" which might be the most accurate description of some of the churches that you are describing.

[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.

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

Yes. You can do things like build infrastructure but eventually the problems will surface and the life will go out of it.

[mike]

I know women don't serve in leadership positions in most/all? CM churches. But do women typically participate in congregational decision-making that involves voting? I honestly don't know the answer so I'm asking.

The correct word for an organization run by men is "patriarchy" which might be the most accurate description of some of the churches that you are describing.

No, conservative Mennonite churches are run by SOME men. In the average CM church, most men generally only have a say in matters of minor importance. Also, in business meetings in our church where church positions are filled, women vote. Men obviously are the only ones voting at monthly men's meetings but those are usually matters of lesser importance. Now in ordinations, the nominations are accepted as one per household, because it is assumed husband and wife will be together. However, single men over 21 also submit nominations, as do widows. I guess the single women don't have a voice.

In my experience women have a lot of power in conservative Mennonite churches. But I don't think that is relevant to the topic of the thread, which is more about the governing structure.

[Soloist]

No, conservative Mennonite churches are run by SOME men. In the average CM church, most men generally only have a say in matters of minor importance. Also, in business meetings in our church where church positions are filled, women vote. Men obviously are the only ones voting at monthly men's meetings but those are usually matters of lesser importance. Now in ordinations, the nominations are accepted as one per household, because it is assumed husband and wife will be together. However, single men over 21 also submit nominations, as do widows. I guess the single women don't have a voice.

In my experience women have a lot of power in conservative Mennonite churches. But I don't think that is relevant to the topic of the thread, which is more about the governing structure.

Depends on the church group. I remember two votes for ordination. My wife and myself. Also men’s meetings in my experience handled more standard issues or sin problems while business meetings handled who did what job.

[Ernie]

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?

This list seems to apply to civil governments but not so well to church models.

The only part that does not apply to church models that I am aware of is the use of the lot for determining who will lead, vs. majority vote as the conservative Brethren are wont to do.