|
|
 |
The various church models: a survey
There is one vital question that must be asked at this point. How are churches to carry out this rich biblical dynamic of inter-church relations? What model should guide them in inter-church relations?
|
|
In the long history of the church, four models are identifiable. They are the Episcopal, Denominational, Associational, and Fellowship models.
Now which of these models is warranted and consistent with the Scriptures? This question is crucial. Although it has nothing to do with orthodox beliefs (essential to the Christian faith), and yet church history is a witness that any deviation from the apostolic structure and government of the church will have very serious repercussions. In the words of Scriptures, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" (Gal 5:9).
The Episcopalian/Bishopric Model
This is the earliest model that emerged right after the apostolic era. Concerning this model, Philip Schaff writes, " The most important and also the most difficult phenomenon of our period in the department of church organization is the rise and development of the episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate. This institution comes to view in the second century as the supreme spiritual office, and is retained to this day by all Roman and Greek Christendom, and by a large part of the Evangelical church, especially the Anglican communion. A form of government so ancient and so widely adopted, can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a religious need, namely, the need of a tangible outward representation and centralization, to illustrate and embody to the people their relation to Christ and to God, and the visible unity of the church." (History of the Christian Church: Vol 2: Pg. 123). Later he adds, " We cannot therefore assume any strict uniformity. But the whole church spirit of the age tended towards centralization; it everywhere felt a demand for compact, solid unity; and this inward bent, amidst the surrounding dangers of persecution and heresy, carried the church irresistibly towards the episcopate. In so critical and stormy a time, the principle, union is strength, division is weakness, prevailed over all" (Ibid. Pg 129).
The distinctive of this model is that the office of "bishop" (episcopate) is distinct from the office of elders (presbyterate) and that the "bishop" had authority and rule over several local churches. In the words of James Bannerman, "The bishop alone has the power of ordination and jurisdiction; the presbyter has no power to ordain or to rule. A bishop supreme in authority and independent in powers within his own diocese, alone having the right of ordination, and ruling singly over the subordinate ranks of presbyters, deacons, and Church members, embodies, according to the Prelatic theory, the proper ideal of the Episcopal as distinguished from other forms of ecclesiastical polity." (The Church of Christ: Vol 2: Pg. 262).
The most advanced expression of the Episcopal model is found in the Roman Pontiff who claims to be the "bishop of all bishops", the supreme ruler and judge of the church universal.
The Denominational Model
Not agreeing with the Episcopal model and yet still feeling the need for organizational unity with the wider body of churches, some have resorted to the denominational model.
Again there is no strict uniformity in this model. What is basic to this, however, is that several churches are all under the rule and authority of a supra-church body. This governing body is composed of either the pastors of member churches (as in the case of the Presbyterians) or members of churches chosen by the churches to act as their representative.
In this model, the local church has no autonomy. But a supra-church body has authority over the churches. It has the power and right to define doctrines for member churches (ecclesiastical Councils and Synods), set policies for member churches, embark in joint efforts, require financial contributions, discipline church officers and members, and interfere with other internal affairs of member churches. In the words of James Bannerman, who favors this model,"…if it is lawful or Scriptural for the governing bodies of different neighbouring congregations to associate for common counsel and the exercise of joint rule, this necessarily implies that the members and rulers of each of these congregations singly are subject to the authority of the whole representative convention. In other words, such an association implies the subordination of each congregation, and the rulers of each congregation, to the common and more general authority of the higher courts (emphasis mine)" (The Church of Christ: Vol 2: Pg. 316).
Moreover, although this is by no means necessary, the denomination at times owns the property of member churches. The titles of lands and other properties are under the denomination.
The Associational Model
Not agreeing with both the Episcopalian and denominational models of inter-church relations and yet feeling the need for expressed unity and order, others resort to the associational model.
Like the denominational model, the associational model still involves some organizational structure. Hiscox, who favors this model, writes, "It (association) frames its own constitution, makes its own by-laws, elects its own officers, and manages its own business… It fixes the terms of membership and the conditions on which the churches may associate; designates the number of messengers to be sent from each Church, orders its own exercises, meets and adjourns at its own pleasure. If any Church does not approve the proceedings it can refuse to affiliate, and withdraw at any time from the Association, if it thinks best." (Ibid. Pg. 336). In fact, an "Association can refuse to receive its messengers, and drop from its fellowship any Church that has violated the constitution and the original compact, or that has, in any matter deemed vital, departed from the faith and practice of the associated churches…" (Ibid. Pg. 337).
The difference, however, between the two models is that the associational model vows to uphold the autonomy of the local church. Again Hiscox writes, "an Association cannot legislate for the churches, exercise any authority over them, or bind them in any way by its own action… They may make suggestions to the churches, or present appeals, and lay requests before them; to all of which the churches will give such attention as may seem to them right and proper" (Ibid. Pg. 335-336).
There is among those who embrace the associational model, however, one significant difference. Some believe that an association can have a common purse, run a publication, established a school for theology, run a mission agency, etc. Others disagree. They believe that all joint or cooperative efforts supported and approved by the member churches shall be under the direct control and supervision of any one of the confederated or member churches who has the responsibility to guard the stewardship of this trust given by the other member churches. The reason for this is to avoid establishing a standing institution of any kind that is not really under the control of any one of the local churches.
The Fellowship Model
Not agreeing with the models previously mentioned some embrace the fellowship model. Those who embrace this model are also concern for expressed unity, cooperation, and order of the wider body of Christ's disciples. They, however, cannot find any biblical precedent or warrant for the Episcopalian, denominational, and associational models. They believe that even the associational model will only complicate the simple apostolic structure and government of the church.
Therefore, although they believe in the mutual recognition of churches, helping one another, cooperation between churches whenever possible and appropriate, consulting churches in matters that affect their relationships, etc, and yet they believe that churches should work out these rich biblical dynamics of inter-church relations without some humanly devised external structure or organization.
Moreover, although those who embrace the fellowship model see a biblical precedent and warrant for churches to voluntarily form inter-church teams to accomplish a specific task (as indicated in the benevolence work for the needy saints in Jerusalem), yet these teams should not assume any permanence. Once the specific task or need is accomplished, then it is dissolved. Cooperative efforts of a more enduring nature like the training of men for the ministry, missionary work, church planting work, are to be under the oversight of either one of the local churches which the other participating churches commend. This is to avoid establishing a standing institution of any kind that is not really under the control of any one of the local churches.
|
|
 |
|
disable pop-ads
| |
|
