A question that might be impossible to answer

What does the Bible say about Church government? Is there such a thing as a "Biblical" Church government, and if so, what is it?

"Who runs the Church?" addresses these issues. It contains contributions from four authors, each defending a different view of Church polity. All four are Protestants, but there the similarity ends. Peter Toon, a minister in the Church of England, argues in support of episcopalianism. The Presbyterian L. Roy Taylor defends presbyteranism (of course), while the Southern Baptists Paige Patterson and Samuel E. Waldron both believe that congregationalism is the correct position. Patterson believes that the congregation should be led by a single elder, while Waldron supports a plural-elder system.

Toon's argument for the episcopate is largely based on the first five centuries of Church history and tradition, rather than on the New Testament. He does believe that the seeds of an episcopalian system are present already in the New Testament writings, but concedes that a fully evolved episcopalianism belongs to the patristic period. However, Toon doesn't see this as a problem, since the canon of Scripture and the main creeds are also products of this period. If Christians accept this, why not accept a Church led by bishops?

By contrast, Taylor, Paige and Waldron attempt to prove their preferred forms of Church government by direct appeals to the New Testament (Taylor also mentions the Old Testament). They believe that the Reformation restored the true Biblical foundations of the Church, and therefore place less emphasis on the patristic age. They spend more time discussing Reformed or Baptist history.

There is a certain amount of frustration visible in the contributions. The difference between Toon on the one hand and the three other writers on the other is an obvious great divide. Toon feels that the Presbyterians and Baptists don't take Church history seriously enough, while his opponents accuse him of downplaying the Bible. The book does give a good overview of the differences between episcopalianism, presbyterianism and congregationalism. Frankly, I didn't realize that these issues were still *this* contentious. I tend to associate "Biblical" conflicts over church government with the English Civil War!

I'm not a Christian, so in that sense I don't care who "wins" a debate like this. Besides, I don't think the question can be solved. The church described in the New Testament had a unique form of organization which was neither "episcopalian", "presbyterian" nor "congregationalist" in the latter senses of these terms. In many ways, the early Church was marked by a *lack* of organization. It was dependent on peripatetic, charismatic leadership figures. This obviously rules out dioceses or archbishoprics, but also Presbyterian general assemblies. But nor is it congregationalism, since the apostles obviously expected to be obeyed by the faithful, and often ordained elders when they planted new congregations.

Just for the fun of it, I browsed Acts and some of the Pauline letters to see what could be gleaned from them about church government. It's obvious that the apostles are considered the leaders. But who exactly is an apostle? In Acts 1, the apostles seem to be the original twelve disciples of Jesus, minus the traitor Judas Iscariot. Peter gathers 120 believers to appoint a new apostle in place of Judas. Congregationalists take this to mean that the early Church was congregational, since *all* believers participated in the selection of a new apostle. But does it? In the rest of the New Testament, the term "apostle" does not refer to the twelve disciples alone. Paul was an apostle. He wasn't part of the twelve. Nor was Jacob, the brother of Jesus. Junia and Andronicus were also apostles. They weren't part of the twelve either. Jacob must have been present at the meeting of the 120 believers. It's possible that Junia and Andronicus were present as well, since Paul says they were in Christ before him. Thus, the broader definition of apostle is anyone who met Jesus in the flesh (or, in the unique case of Paul, the heavenly Jesus). But this would make *all* the 120 original believers apostles, since presumably they had all known Jesus personally! After all, the meeting which appointed Matthias the successor of Judas took place shortly after the (supposed) ascension of Jesus. Thus, this wasn't a meeting of your average Baptist congregation. It was a gathering of apostles (in the broader sense of the term). This would have given it the necessary authority to appoint a new member of the Twelve. Besides, the actual number of believers may have been larger than the obviously symbolic number 120. Paul claims that the resurrected Jesus once showed himself to 500 believers at once!

In Acts 6, the congregation does appoint ministers often regarded as deacons, including Stephen. However, deacons are more lower-ranking than elders. Also, the decision of the congregation is approved by the apostles by the laying on of hands.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs a congregation to expel an erring member. This sounds like congregationalism: all believers as a collective have the right and duty to uphold Church discipline. However, Paul also says that he is present "in spirit" at the meeting of the congregation, and that he has "already condemned" the sinner in question. It sounds as if Paul is demanding that the congregation rubber stamps a decision already reached by Paul himself in absentia.

An even trickier question concerns the prophets. The New Testament repeatedly mentions prophets in the early Church. Paul even gives women the right to prophesy. The prophets obviously had some status within the Ur-Church. But who appointed them? This is never explained, but judging by the context, they were self-appointed. This would have created an almost "anarchic" situation, in which anyone could step forward and claim the mantle of a prophet. On the other hand, the apostles obviously had the right to rebuke the prophets. Paul rebukes unruly prophets in 1 Cor 14. John (or a writer claiming to be John) rebukes the false prophet Jezebel in Revelation, on behalf of Christ himself, no less.

Finally, there is the famed Council of Jerusalem (described in Acts 15) at which the mother church in Jerusalem reached a decision binding on all Christian congregations. The council consisted of both "apostles" and "elders". It's not clear how the elders had been appointed. By the apostles? However, they are clearly equal with the apostles at the council. The decisions of the council were considered binding on the entire Church, although no other congregation sent delegates to the council. This, then, is something as curious as a kind of "collective papacy"!

What about single elders or plural elders? Usually, the Church leadership seems to have been collective. The apostles are, of course, a collective. When Paul and Barnabas were appointed missionaries, the decision was taken collectively by the Church leadership at Antioch, described as "prophets and teachers". Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned in tandem. But note the seven letters in Revelation, which seem to imply a single elder or even bishop (if the "angel" is taken to be a symbol of an actual person).

The Apostolic Fathers are also contradictory. Clement of Rome says that after the age of the apostles, bishops and deacons were selected by "men of repute with the consent of the whole Church". It's not clear who the "men of repute" might be. Nor is it clear to me what "consent of the whole Church" means, since Clement opposes the "sedition" at Corinth, during which the Corinthian Christians overthrew its presbyters (or bishops). Clement apprently feels he has the right to intervene in the proceedings of another congregation! Another kind of tension exists in the Didache, which recognizes apostles as the supreme leaders, while nevertheless giving the congregation the right to test whether a visiting apostle really is an apostle or not. And finally, there is Ignatius, who defends the rule of a single, male bishop over the congregation. This system eventually won out and became the standard one.

It would seem that the earliest Church had a somewhat improvisational organization, hardly surprising given the small number and scattered character of the Christian believers at this time. After the death of the apostles, the question became who should inherit their authority? No clear answer is given in the New Testament, so we may safely predict that the question "who runs the church" will continue to saw dissension...