Flip asked over on my post on congregational polity to explain some of the theological terms in it. Really, I should do that more often, since there is often the possibility of multiple similar terms, not to mention that they may not translate literally to readers' native tongues. I'll just do all of the terms I can spot; it might lead to an interesting discussion.
Let's start with the basics of what I was discussing. Church polity is the system of government used by a given church. Among most types of churches, we find three types of polity: episcopal, presbyterian or congregational. These can be made almost perfectly analogous to "perfect forms" of government: the absolute monarchy, democratic republic and pure democracy, respectively. Of course, it is rare that any of these "out in the wild" in pure form, but likewise, it is rare that church polity is existent in a pure form (although, as I will show, I think the presbyterian form is most likely to be found in a pure form).
By episcopal, I do not mean the Episcopal Church (Anglicanism in America), although the Episcopal Church is, logically enough, episcopal in government. Simply put, episcopal polity is the polity in which bishops (Greek: episkopos) rule. Other denominations with bishops include, obviously, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches, among others. I suspect I don't need to mention this, but technically a bishop is generally considered to be someone consecrated by another bishop in a line that should go back to the apostles. Because of this system of spiritual inheritance, churches such as the Anglican Church and the Old Catholics can claim apostolic authority that must be recognized by the Church of Rome. Some protestant groups use the term more loosely; I'm not sure if the looser usage can be completely traced back to John Wesley, but he did encourage it in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the fledgling U.S. (the ancestor to modern U.S. Methodism), since he allowed the group to ordain a bishop by itself (he had no apostolic authority to do so, nor did anyone else involved).
Presbyterian polity, like episcopal polity, shares its name with its most enthusiastic American adopter, the Presbyterian Church (be it PC (USA) or PCA or something else). By presbyterian, I mean a church governed by a "session" (council) made up of the minister(s) and lay elders. The session is under the presbytery, which is a body made up of representatives from member churches. Likewise the synod is over the presbytery and the General Assembly is over the synods. This is a very representative form of government, but also proportions a nice amount of control over the churches to the ministers and other congregations, keeping some accountability between denominations. This was the polity of the ruling English Puritans when Cromwell came to power.
Congregational polity technically is a polity in which the individual congregation is completely autonomous in rule. Most congregationalists do cede some authority to higher level groups. For example, in the Evangelical Free Church of America, we have districts and so forth that fit fairly analogous to the presbyterian hierarchy. The key thing with congregationalists, however, is that we can cede at any time from the denomination, have complete control of our property and the selection of pastors. The denomination cannot seize a church for bad doctrine, although it can disfellowship with it.
This form of polity, as I noted in my last post on the subject, has its good points and bad points. Increasingly, I've decided that presbyterianism is a better model, although I continue to see some distinct advantages in congregationalism. Congregationalist movements have often merged with presbyterian movements as they get older, since there is a tendency to create an increasingly powerful governing body and therefore the polity shifts toward presbyterianism. Baptists are the best known congregationalists today, but the original American congregationalists were known simply as the Congregationalists and they are now part of the United Church of Christ.
Another term I used was non-denominational, which is the term Flip specifically asked about. Just to put us on the same page, I will define a denomination as any group of Christians which I may or may not agree with on all things, but is still a part of the one true Church (what C.S. Lewis calls "mere Christianity"). That is, I'll never be a Pentecostal or Roman Catholic, because I disagree on finer points of theology with those groups, but they are still members of the true Church (I'm speaking generally here, not about individuals). On the other hand, groups that consider themselves the exclusive Christian church (in exclusion to all other denominations) or disagree on the essentials of the faith are likely sects and not a denominations; think of the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. So, when I refer to denominations, I mean the Baptists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Catholics, etc.
So, then, what is a non-denominational church? Well, they are really a member of the denomination of non-denominationals. Really, it might make more sense to call them "adenominationals" instead of non-denominationals. I won't try to explain their reasoning, but they feel it is preferable to not be affiliated with a national or regional organization, but rather are totally autonomous. Congregational churches often become non-denominational churches by withdrawing from their congregational denomination, likewise, sometimes non-denominational churches will eventually affiliate, usually with a congregational denomination. Non-denominational churches are not always congregational in nature, however. They may also be authoritarian in rule, especially in the ones I referred to as cults of personality, where you may see a really popular pastor essentially "rule" the church with no accountability above (in the form of a denominational association) or below (from the congregation, save for the fact that the pastor must keep the congregation from quitting).
In my opinion, to which I mean no disrespect to my non-denom friends, this lack of accountability is dangerous and breeds corruption much like that of an episcopal polity -- since the only thing keeping the leaders under control is a need to avoid defections to other churches, a lot of things can happen that would not occur in a congregational or presbyterian church. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the cliche goes. Even congregational polity in a non-denominational church is on shakier ground, since there is not even the need to exit a denomination before the group can change what its doctrinal beliefs are; that is, creeds and statements of faith have the least authoritative value in this type of system.
The churches that end up being cults of personality will usually either fizzle out on the death of the founder or follow the process Max Weber called the routinization of charisma into a church with more systematized doctrines that slowly begins to look somewhat like a denomination. Weber's process simply notes the obvious: the charismatic leader will die and, at that point, a group cannot hang together merely on that charisma anymore, but must come up with another way of sticking togther: it must systematize.
There may be other types of church polity, but it seems to me that almost all of them will fit somewhere between these on a right/left spectrum. I'm sure I've treaded on the positions of some of you, although I hope if I have done so that I have done so in a way that makes it clear that I do not question one's membership in the one Church of Christ based on what polity you like or live under (I make that distinction since I'm advocating presbyterianism presently despite being in a congregational church).
That's all he wrote for tonight, for I am tired. Feel free to critique, add to or just plain discuss this stuff in the comments. I'd be interested in hearing everyones' thoughts on both the editorializations and the parts I hope are relatively factual.
Trackback URL: http://asisaid.com/journal/trackback/685.html
“Well, they are really a member of the denomination of non-denominationals.”
Not exactly…
"Non–denominational" churches really can't be lumped together like that. A more basic and more accurate definition would be to say these are churches that do not find their identity in a denomination/fellowship/assembly.
I'm also going to pick teeth with your definition of "congregationalist."
Not all churches that act independently of a hierarchical governing system use the same polity. The type of polity most equated with congregationalism is that where the members of the church each have an equal vote in decisions of the church. They may decide to cede all but the most important decisions to a smaller committee, but the members are the ultimate authority.
In other independent churches, the senior pastor is the ultimate authority. And, in yet others, a group of elders (paid, lay, or a combination) are the authority.
Your definitions of the three types work if you limit your view of the church to traditional denominations, but don't work so well when you include newer denominations and churches that are not members of denominations.
Last, while I understand your fear of churches that aren't members of a denomination going astray, I'll point out the churches going furthest astray in our nation right now are not the non-denominationals, but the more traditional denominations, such as the US Episcopal Church and the United Methodists in the pacific northwest. Any church can go bad and anyone in leadership is going to be tempted with the power, but the idea that non-denom churches lack accountability isn't the full picture.
Kevin, you raise a good point, although in my experience, it seems that most (by no means all) non-denom churches have certain things in common. Maybe that’s not the way it is everywhere.
Concerning congregationalists, I might quibble if some of your examples are true congregationalism. But, as I said, I’m talking pure/theoretical forms… usually in the wild they do not follow all of the characteristics of the theoretical form. It seems most churches will be a variation on one or more of these themes. I.e. an church that is lead by the pastor rather than the congregation but is independent of the higher level denominational board might be a mix between episcopal and congregational forms — sort of like the early church when you might have had a bishop at your own church.
What kinds of polity are the newer denominations using?
Concerning non-denominationals going astray, I see them going astray to the right rather than the left. The ones I’ve seen that have gone somewhat or all of the way astray generally start becoming increasingly separatist from the wider Church and create the “cult of personality” I referred to, because there is no one to put the pastor in his place from above.
I’d agree about the mainlines that you mention, but I’d note that if I’m not mistaken, both of those denoms are episcopal in structure (I think the UMC is, isn’t it?). The other mainlines you see moving astray are congregationalists that have leaned away from creeds (i.e. the United Church of Christ).
I don’t think all non-denominationals lack accountability, but I think there is a greater chance in such situations.
Ok, so over the last few days I’ve shown my criticisms of non-denominational churches and episcopal churches ( defense of congregationalism , church polity overview ). Now, in the interest of fairness, I shall deal with the problems of the remaining t…
The Presbyterians (choose your flavor) are on just as slippery a slope as the Methodists and then what do you do with the uber-pentacostals and certain baptist groups who are proudly congregationalist and proudly pharisaical?
The question I have over "congregationalist" is whether we need to change the definition or come up with a new word. Back in the day when the non-denominational church was a rare beast, the definition you gave would have been accurate. But, what do you do with the Independent Christian Churches who don't have any central government between the churches, but are elder-rule, not congregation-rule?
Same question with the non-denominationals. Do we create a new term for those who are independent congregations but do not use a congregational-vote polity or do we expand the term congregationalist to include multiple polities?
While many (I won't even say "most" here) non-denominational churches look alike, they cannot be lumped together as a denomination purely because of similarities in doctrine and practice. There are a lot of them following the "Willowback" model, but even they are only one slice of the non-denominational pie.
Interesting. It’s curious how the church I’m a member of doesn’t quite fit in to any of that.
I’m a member of Vineyard Community Church. We describe ourselves as Non-denominational, but there is a loose Association. My understanding of the reasoning we call ourselves as non-denominational is that if we call ourselves just "Vineyard", it means nothing to most people, as most people haven't heard of us. Non-denominational, to my mind, in this context, means "not like the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals or any other of the `famous' denominations; put aside your preconceived notions of what church is like, we're something a little different from what you might expect."
Our church Polity is also interesting. We have a Pastor, a Pastoral Council, which determining policy related to pastoral care and theology, and the Board which essentially is in charge of the fiscal business of being a charitable organization. None of these people are elected. I'm not even sure how they are selected (must remember to ask my pastor that one!). There is also, right now, an ad hoc committee for the purpose of deciding if we need an associate pastor, if so, what they should look like, and then selecting a person to fill that role. However, our church leadership is a lot more than that. We have leaders for various programmes, including home bible study and fellowship groups. Our pastor is also always at pains to ensure people understand that the answer to "Who is the minister at your church?" is "I am" for each of us!
With the loose association, there is some upwards accountability, and the downwards accountability is informal, but effective. The various councils and the pastor himself are all open to opinions from the membership.
It's also interesting that you describe the Episcopal Church as monarchistic. I admit I have little experience of Episcopalianism in the US, but before I moved to St Louis, I was a member of the Anglican church in England (indeed, my father is a retired Anglican priest). However, the polity of the Anglican church seems quite at odds from your description. Yes, the bishops exist as you describe. However, the local church operates very differently. There is a body called the Pastoral Church Council (PCC). The PCC is made up of the Incumbant (the minister), the two Churchwardens, a small number of members of the Deanery Synod (a regional policy body), and a larger number of other elected members of the congregation. Some members of the Deanery Synod, and certain particular churches with special priviledges are elected to the General Synod, the national policy body, which also has the Bishops as members.
One of the two Churchwardens may be selected by the Incumbant, but if not, he/she is elected along with the other Churchwarden, by the membership of the local church. A certain number of members of the local church are elected to the Deanery Synod (the exact number depending on the size of the membership). The Incumbant, Churchwardens and Synod members are, as I mentioned, ex-officio members of the PCC, the other members of which are elected from the members of the church, by the members of the church.
Essentially, it is the General Synod that determines theology, though that theology is expressed at a local level in many different ways. The Anglican church is very varied in style of worship, from "high" churches, which could be almost indistinguishable from many Catholic churches, to "low" churches, almost indistiguishable from many "non-denominational" churches.
The PCC is responsible for the fiscal functions of the church, and a lot of other bits and pieces. Interestingly, during an interregnum (vacancy in the Incumbancy), it is the PCC that has the ultimate authority to accept or reject any ministers put forward by the bishop.
So, the Anglican church seems to be much more "democratic republic" than the image you depict, even at the national level, as the local church has representatives in the General Synod (either directly, or through the Deanery).
Going back to "non-denominational" churches and the perils of autonomy, I am also aware of a specific Baptist church with uh, issues. This particular church called itself a Baptist church because preconceptions of what Baptists are fit pretty much with the theology of the church, so it was an aid for others as to what they might expect. However, this church was independent of any convention or other body. The son of the Senior pastor is the junior pastor, and there was a youth pastor there as well. There was an issue with the junior pastor. The bible says that those in pastoral authority should be held to a higher standard of purity than regular church members. The junior pastor was, without going into details, somewhat lacking, and the youth pastor called him on it. Ultimately, the youth pastor was fired by the senior pastor, and there was a pretty big church split. The youth pastor's position was subsequently filled by the senior pastor's son-in-law! I make no comment on subsequent accountability.
Now, by your definition of non-denominational, this church would be it. But they are a Baptist church because they chose to call themselves that, in order to aid those seeking a church in getting a broad overview of likely theology.
I personally think that that the non-denominational tag is better used to describe expectations of theology and/or worship style than it is to describe affiliation.
Incidentally, you would be very welcome to join us at our church so you can experience for yourself an example of non-denominationalism
Kevin: I think a new term might be best. It seems to me that congregational control of the congregation is pretty well synonymous with pure congregationalism.
Regarding the Presbyterians, I suspect you are right, especially about the PCUSA, although some of their General Assembly votes have been refreshing — certainly not the kind of stuff you’d see at the ECUSA or UCC. For instance, their vote a few years back to affirm salvation through Christ alone… The PCA seems to be on stronger ground, but I don’t know what’s happening to it internally at the moment.
Timothy: Well, it seems to me the Vineyard is simply a very “weak” (as in power, not a judgment on its quality) denomination, but I see where claiming the non-denom tag might be helpful. I’d be interested in hearing what you find out about selection of board members from your pastor…
Concerning the ECUSA, I could be wrong, but I believe it doesn’t operate the way you describe in the Anglican Church. I think the ECUSA’s polity resembles the CoE of the eighteenth century still, but again, I could be wrong. That’s quite a complex system the Anglicans have going.
Perhaps I should stick to using the Catholic church as my example of episcopal governance in the future.
That "Baptist" church definitely sounds like what I was thinking of, as you said. Since they aren't truly a member of a Baptist convention I'd be inclined to call them a non-denominational church too... sounds like a sad state of affairs.
Btw, Timothy, thanks for the invite. I shall keep that in mind for some Sunday.
Thanks Tim, I really appreciate your explanations! The foreign vocabulary sometimes makes it difficult to know if you mean the things I think you mean, if you see what I mean…
You’re welcome Flip, I do see what you mean. Now, if I could just think of a witty comeback off hand.
At any rate, I'm glad it was helpful. I should do this more often, it makes me really think about the terms I'm using.
Maybe you’re like me in the way that I learn and understand things better by explaining them to others
A young man (named variously Kevin or Gus) who is finishing up his studies at Multnomah Biblical Seminary is blogging here about his imminent entry into the Roman Catholic Church—what he calls his “Romecoming.” The rather inauspicious beginning to his…
Hi…my name is Chad. I pastor a non-denominational church that is 6 years old. I am began the church at age 20 with only a couple of families. In these 6 years, we have experienced incredible growth and are now faced with some difficult challenges when it comes to government and church structure.
I enjoyed what you wrote about the polity of the church and agree with the accountability issue when it comes to non-denominational churches.
I just wanted to share what we did within our own congregation. From the very beginning as a church, before we even held our first worship service, we created a board of directors that we are accountable to that are outside our congregation. These consists of retired and active ministers that are both lay ministers and pastors. They are the governing board of our church. We give full accountability to them because they are on the outside looking in.
When critical issues arise, they are the deciding factors. They do not have any self-gain, self-ambition or self-agenda’s. They will make the best decisions for the church body.
We also have a board of elders within the congregation that take care of the day to day business. However, full accountabilitiy is given to the Board of Directors.
Thanks for stopping by! Hmm, fascinating, Chad. That sounds like a very good system of accountability. How do you pick new members for the board of directors?
Wow! Different views and definitions on church polity.
How about the Kingdom Principle of handling the church polity….? Maybe a fathering….
Please enter your comment entry below. Press 'Preview' to see how it will look.