What are the
comparative strengths and weaknesses of various church governments?
(Borrowed with minimal adjustments from www.ifca.org)
Over the course of time, any group which stays together long enough will settle upon some form of organization. This may be from or informal but it will inevitably happen. In other words, it may be a carefully chosen and scriptural process or it will come about in a chaotic, ad hoc manner. It may be the whole group making decisions, after appropriate Bible study, prayer and fasting; or it may be wealthy Aunt Bertha who controls the purse strings of the church who calls all the shots.
Churches tend to fall into one of three major categories or some modification thereof. These three designations will be referred to as pastor rule, congregational rule or elder rule.
PASTOR RULE
Strengths
1. The
whole process of decision making can be streamlined since there are few if any
committees, boards or congregations with which to reach a workable, common
solution.
2.
Instant reactions are possible in times of emergency depending upon the
decisiveness of the leader.
3. Leadership
would often be seen as being decisive rather than vacillating in dealing with
questions and problems.
4. Decision
making and direction of such an organizational structure may be more
predictable depending on how well one is acquainted with the leader.
5. Some
people seem to prefer being told what to do without having to make difficult
choices for themselves. Pastor rule lends itself to such a mentality.
Weaknesses
1. The
direction of the whole body depends on the judgment of one man. If he is good
and godly this may not be bad, but if he is not it is disastrous.
2. If
people do not share his vision they will probably begin to say things like,
"He thought of it so he can do it himself," or "If he wants that
program he can pay for it himself."
3. Such
a system does not by nature encourage direction and input from a multitude of
counselors and therefore tends to have a very narrow and limited view of the
scope of any situation.
4. The
ever present danger of reveling in pride is a very real pitfall for such a man
in leadership.
5. There
is often little or no accountability for such a leader.
6. Though
the strengths of the individual leader may well be passed along to the
congregation, so will the weaknesses.
7. This
system seems to violate the principles of the freedom and responsibility of
each believer as well as the priesthood of the individual Christian.
8. There
is less evidence for this organizational form in the New Testament than the
others under consideration, except for authoritative pronouncements by the
apostles. And there is no Scriptural basis for equating the pastorate with the
apostolate.
9. One
man alone will frequently lose track of the people and their needs, and may
well find himself leading with no one following.
CONGREGATIONAL RULE
Strengths
1. Since
the majority rules in such a system, people often feel they are or can be part
of the decision making process.
2. A
sense of personal accountability and responsibility may result from being part
of making decisions and policy.
3. Often
people seem to be better informed about the direction and decisions of the
church under congregational rule.
4. A
broader pool of information is available from which to draw in coming up with a
consensus even though the information may not always be helpful or accurate.
5. There
may be more stability resulting from the input of a group rather than an
individual, depending upon the makeup of the group.
6. It
may be easier to identify needs of the whole group if the congregation is
involved in government.
7. The
church is not saddled with a poorly functioning board or pastoral leader which
it cannot remove.
Weaknesses
1. A
vocal minority has been known to derail carefully thought out, Spirit-directed
plans.
2. Congregational
rule frequently confuses fellowships over the roles of deacons and elders. Is
he a deacon? Is he an elder? Is he to function as a server or a person who goes
to board meetings?
3. Particularly
for large churches this would seem to be unwieldy and difficult to be
functional.
4. Such
a form of church government can lend itself to a questioning or rejection of
any form of church leadership or authority.
5. Decisions
are sometimes made on the basis of one vocal person's feelings or whims rather
than carefully thought out considerations.
6. Less
trained, less dedicated, or less capable people may influence the decision of
the whole group.
7. Anger,
prejudice, and favoritism can more easily enter into the final decision.
8. There
is often an assumption made in congregational churches that the majority is
always right. The majority is only the largest percent of the vote, whether it
is right or wrong.
ELDER RULE
Strengths
1. Either
this form of government or at least a modified form of it seems to have the
most support from the New Testament model.
2. The
directions and decisions of the church are not set by vocal individuals in
church business meetings.
3. A
strong, godly board of elders gives strong, godly guidance to the church.
4. A
unified board gives strength and credibility to decisions.
5. Continuity
of leadership on the part of elders often results in stability for the
fellowship.
6. There
is a potential to reach decisions more quickly than with a congregation since
fewer people are involved.
7. A
plurality of elders gives a more comprehensive view of the situation as opposed
to one man making all the decisions. They bring with them a multiplicity of
ideas, experience, training, knowledge and spiritual gifts.
8. If
biblical guidelines are followed, the best qualified and most spiritual
individuals in the fellowship are to lead.
9. More
effective shepherding of the flock is facilitated when several share the
responsibility.
Weaknesses
1. It
is not infrequent that elder boards have lost touch with the congregation due
to ineffective communication of goals, directions, and decisions.
2. Sometimes
there is a diminishing sense of accountability when a few individuals have the
final word on a matter. This can be further heightened when a self-perpetuating
board exists.
3. A
self-perpetuating board of elders can in turn perpetuate life in a spiritual
rut for the fellowship at large.
4. The
cultural surroundings for Americans are so saturated with the notion of democracy
being the preferable form of government that they sometimes rebel when the
church follows another form.
5. People
may begin to expect the elders to "do it all" when the constituents
are not consulted in the decision making in any way.
6. If
elders are not unified the congregation can quickly be polarized by following
this elder or that one, depending on their personal bias.
7. Elder
form of church government can be used as a platform for a personal agenda or
vendetta on the part of an individual leader.
8. Lack
of communication often causes questioning of the decisions of the leadership as
well as their motives.
9. Elder
boards can become unsympathetic to some of the views or some of the people in
the fellowship.
10. It is possible to develop a low view
of pastoral ministry and leadership when a number of men share the title of
elder.
A key
ingredient to the organizational success of any local church in the eyes of the
Lord is in the final analysis one thing - godly leadership. Godly leaders who
are controlled by the Spirit of God will lead their fellowships in directions
consistent with the will of God. The next step must be a willingness on the
part of the congregation to follow that God-given leadership. As you wend your
way through the reefs of implementing organizational changes or working with
existing structures, pray that the Lord will give you wisdom and grace to
continue serving effectively in your local fellowship.
Suggested
M. J. Erickson, Christian
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985).
John F. MacArthur, Jr. Shepherdology, A Master Plan for Church Leadership (Masters
Fellowship, 1989).
A. Strauch, Biblical
Eldership, An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church
Leadership, (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth Publishers, 1986).