Church Governance

Question:

Do some first-hand research on different forms of church governance. You may want to interview a minister, priest, or lay-member from a Christian tradition different from yours—Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic. How do you understand authority in the church? Where does authority reside to decide between conflicting understandings of Scripture or theology? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of being ruled by a bishop who is empowered to make a final decision? Compare this to a congregational or representative form of government. What can you learn from this different perspective that will enhance your appreciation for the variety of ways that the church governs itself?

I recently attended an Episcopal Church and talked with the priest. He was Anglican and was now in charge in an Episcopal church. One striking difference was that this was a "Protestant" church but still provided a communion and a Sunday "Eucharist". I asked the priest about this and he told me that since he was an ordained Angelican priest he could claim Apostolic succession. Since he could claim Apostolic succession, he could properly and rightfully provide the "Eucharist". Since I attended Roman Catholic high school (I am non-denominational) I knew that even this supposed close tie to Apostolic succession was not recognized in the Roman Catholic Church. As far as my education went, when England split from Rome, all Apostolic succession ended when that split occurred and thus all other churches and denominations were "anathema" or not recognized. A bishop still approves decision in this denomination and thus still tries to follow the succession of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church. It was interesting that titles were more important than what was taught through sermons or bible study. To me the authority resides in the Holy Spirit and those who obviously have the Spirit and teach through Scripture. Authority seems to reside in the top hierarchy of the particular denomination such as Episcopal, and individual priest do not have the ability to teach as the Spirit shows them but only as the the governing councils have agreed to. The advantages of such a form of governance is that off the wall and "unorthodox" biblical teaching would be eliminated and that the sermons stayed the same as they have for hundred of years. The disadvantages included the inability to grow with changing times and a type of close mindedness when it came to biblical exegesis. This form of governance is like a pyramid and is a popular business management model that is still in use today. The pope or bishop is at the top and like a triangle or pyramid, all lower levels of management are influenced and in the control of the levels above them. In college, we used to use the Roman Catholic church as an effective management hierarchy because something works well if it has worked for 2000 years. However, that is not how the Holy Spirit works...it may work well as a business management model but my experience proves that the Spirit cannot be confined to a "model". What I can learn from this perspective is that even a Protestant denomination like the Anglican and Episcopal churches, find the Apostolic succession to be very important and crucial in church authority and doctrine.

People of the Early Church vs. People of Today's Church

One of the reasons we study Church history is to meet our relatives. Who have you met so far that you admire? How do you see a family similarity between this person and people in the Church today? Have you met a relative in our study so far that you didn’t like? How do you picture that person's impact on today’s Church?

One person I admire is Polycarp. Here was a man who was the last to know Jesus and stated a very important Truth; "Since Christ is a living Lord you do not need to know someone who knew Him when He was alive". Here once again was a group of people who looked for something in the physical world to link to the spiritual...they had to have a "link", they saw importance in a physical person knowing Jesus and not getting to the Truth...Jesus is the Son of God who is alive and present even after His death, resurrection, and ascension. He is Our Lord who hears every thought and sees every action as He watches over His flock.
I see a link between Polycarp and those in the Church today who have an obvious and fulfilling relationship with Our Lord. There is a big difference between those who speak about faith and those who have a living faith. This faith is present in their face, actions, words, and speech. There are those who know Christ and those who claim to know Him.
There were several relatives that I did not like. I will choose a small quote to emphasize one example...the textbook "Women in Early Church History" stated on page 18, that Jerome believed that the parable of the sower was speaking about the "one hundred fold harvest" as pertaining to the greater blessing of virginity to be twisted. Some of these "Early Church Father's" spoke with such authority that history was influenced greatly by them. I understand some of the points between celibacy and working hard at fulfilling the Lord's will, but to take one of the parables of Jesus and speak about it as if it was pertaining to virginity, widowhood, and marriage to be a teacher who can lead their flocks astray. Yes, parables have "layered meaning", but I cannot help but notice an agenda by some of the early Church Fathers that spun around some "logic" or "rational deduction".
This is true today too! I hear a "prosperity" gospel out there that emphasizes material wealth using twists of Christ's words in order to make the sermon seem that Jesus Himself spoke it. There are wolves in sheep's clothing out there...thank the Lord that we have the Son of God through the Holy Spirit protecting, watching, and helping us uncover the Truth.