Church Leadership and Governance

We have been wrestling with setting our church bylaws here at Passion. There are many issues to deal with, including how the world demands the church perform its business and how the division of responsibility happens within the leadership of the church. For simplicity, I will ask you to review the following blog article, which helps with this discussion: http://www.biblicalelders.com/proposal_for_elder_led_church.htm

Obviously, this is a baptist blog and therefore will not recognize the five-fold ministry within the church to the same level that I will here. Further, there is little discussion concerning the role and place of the Deaconate within the Church. However, this article sets out the Scriptural background for the mandate of Elder leadership within the Church, which often conflicts with the World system that is often imposed on the Church.

The American Church's polity has often aired on the side of fear of strong Eldership, given the history of the Church, especially in England and the Papacy, where abuses by leadership have left Americans, both in the Church and in politics, being very wary of strong, centralized governance. Americans have taken this to an extent that has led to an individualism that is not healthy within the Church. On the other hand, safeguards are also required to protect from abusive, authoritarian and oppressive Church leaders who may tend toward "beating the sheep," rather than loving them and laying down their lives for them, which is the model Jesus gave to us.

One important point to note is that the World system we have been given through incorporation processes sets up a system that gives the Congregation a vote in all matters and provides a legal board of directors that has trump value over all Church authority (if not set correctly in the bylaws). Let me be clear: The congregation is subordinate to the Godly leadership of the Church Elders and Deacons. This is not a democracy, nor is it representative. However, neither is it authoritarian. How, then, do we as Church leaders, strike a balance?

As I look at the structure given to us in Scripture, one in which Elders provide the vision and direction (oversight) of the Church and Deacons oversee the daily operations in fulfillment of the vision of the Elders, I see some clear connections with how the US Military performs its functions. Since the Bible regularly uses military metaphors, and since we recognize that we are, indeed, in a spiritual war, we should look at this system as a possible help for delineating duties and responsibilities within the Church leadership structure.

The Army divides duties between three entities: Officers, NCOs and enlisted. There are also Warrant Officers, but I will leave that arm out for our purposes here. The three groups roughly relate to Elders, Deacons and congregants, respectively. Officers decide. They make plans, in coordination with the NCOs, and with understanding of the needs, duties and responsibilities of the enlisted members. Officers take the Strategic Mission given them by the Government they serve - in our case, that "Government" is the Kingdom of God, with Jesus (in a manner) as the Secretary of Defense. The strategy is given us in Scripture. We the Elders are, as officers, to take the strategy of Christ and give it form in the Operational aspects of the Church. The primary question officers (Elders) are concerned with is this: How do we take the assets God has given us (our gifts, callings and specific mission) and develop the operational picture in our area of operations?

The Elders receive the vision and develop it to define what kind of church we are within the Church - what does this local church do as a unit of the greater Church? How does it fit in the battle scheme? The Elders understand their area of operations (their ministry priorities, geographically and task-wise) and see how they ought to best deploy their assets to fight the part of the war God has given their individual church. The Elders discern from the people God has given them how to deploy and utilize those assets. Different churches will have different missions. All of them fit into the design of the greater war effort.

The NCOs are the Deacons. They assist in the planning but are not ultimately responsible for the operational and greater strategical set - the direction and vision of the church itself. Theirs is to take the finalized plans - plans for which the Elders will be held responsible - and turn them into work. They are concerned with the daily tasks that help complete the plans the Elders have delivered to them. They give hands and feet to the operations decided upon and the strategies set by the Elders. The Deacons, stated in Scripture as those who "wait tables," while the Elders dedicate themselves to shepherding through prayer and study (and impartation) of Scripture, ensure that the Congregation (the enlisted) is equipped to and capable of completing their individual missions. The Elders are to equip the enlisted for works of service, but the Deacons create the climate in which what is imparted by the Elders can be enacted by the family of believers.

Unfortunately, the World system has set up barriers to success. The American Church has also set up its own barriers to mission success. The Congregational model, while lauded by most church leaders as a viable model for performing church duties, inverts the Biblical model by giving the enlisted a vote in not only what the mission is, but who the leaders are and how long they should continue to function - often even deciding what their realm of function is. The World system, by creating a system of polity that encourages this democratic structure, also adds to the problem a legal structure that allows a Deaconate unfettered authority over the Eldership through secular control of church funds, essentially giving them veto power over decisions the Elders might make.

Both systems are easily noted in our society. The congregational model creates a system wherein congregants often haphazzardly guide the church through endless voting rituals, exerting their rebellion through the selection or expulsion of Elders with whom they disagree, or through a democratic decision-making process on what the vision of the church is. One need not even be a mature or faithful member to have a vote, in many cases. The influence of the World enters easily through this system, as church members get to vote on how best to entertain the body and how to create a more customer-friendly, consumeristic church model.

The World model creates a system in which a small body located on the board of directors can hold hostage the decisions and guidance of the Elders by simply using their legal powers over the church to halt the vision that rightly comes through the Elders. Often, as I've seen it locally, long-standing boards of men (and women) who may or may not truly be Deacons, but rather may have come into their membership on the board by worldly standards of success, rather than of spiritual maturity, override Elders, choose Elders, expel Elders and stymie the efforts of Elders in order to guide the church in their own chosen paths.

These models, again, have often been borne out of frustration with Elders who have not lived up to their mandate within the church to truly and spiritually guide the church in accordance with Scriptural guidance and Godly authority and love. But the question is this: Who gets to decide when the Eldership is off-base? I do not see evidence in Scripture of either of the other two models having this authority. Only in the removal of an Elder does the Congregation or Deaconate have a mandate, and this only on grounds of moral failure. I have seen Elders removed for moral failings, but far more often have seen Elders frustrated by the power-grabbing of a board of elders or by the whimsical decision-making of the congregation at large.

The model I am leaning toward is one that links the Elders and Deacons as a leadership team...and as a board of directors. The weight of voting will have to be pushed to the side of the Elders, however, as they should not be overridden. Neither, however, should the Elders "lord it over" the Deacons by fiat. Unity of the Spirit is a necessity for the local body to perform correctly, and the humility of all leaders, along with the careful choosing thereof in advance, are key to this unity. A decision that divides Elders and Deacons, or any part of a leadership team, is likely a decision that should not be entered into until unity can be found.

How to set this system to paper, in legal terms as part of the bylaws, is the trick. How do we weight authority correctly and Biblically, without setting up an authoritarian structure? How do we give Elders the freedom they need to guide the church to mission completion without letting them run over their NCOs and enlisted members? How do we give members a voice without giving them veto power? How do we honor the position of the Deaconate without letting them grab the power of the Elders, subverting the authority only God can give? How do we set up a system that encourages all believers to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ? How do we set up a system that invites Christ in, to chastise Elders who are not rightly governing, to raise up Deacons and Elders who are truly called, to equip and empower believers to do the works of ministry He has prepared in advance for them to do?

It is a solemn and difficult charge. But it is worth the effort. God will ensure there is always a Church to do the ministry He has ordained. Ultimately, how we respond within the right structure will determine whether or not we will be a fully functioning unit in the Army of Salvation.