Church Governance

Both the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Presbyterian Church (USA) are conducting national conferences this year and are both considering changes in their respective forms of denominational governance in order to streamline and enable the denomination as a whole.  At least that is the official statement.  Not being a part of either denomination, I do not know fully how either will be affected if ratified, but based on observable human nature and the group dynamics of ruling bodies, both denominations will find their headquarters wielding more power and the individual churches less.

Why this shift?
The reasons for organizational change are numerous.  Assuming honest souls at the helm, the changing demographics, obstacles, and vision lead the list.  In other words, the desire for relevance, couple with pragmatism, drives the organization model.  This works well in business where the customer is king and desires change regularly as taste and technology move with ever-increasing velocity and products brought to market to meet demand.  The "goodness" of a good or service is defined by how it meets a felt need.  In the case of the gospel, however, the goodness is infinite being derived from an infinite, therefore unchanging, source—God himself.  That being so, it is reasonable that the delivery and administrative systems surrounding this commodity¹ are also of an infinite, unchanging character.

What is the correct model?
We know from Scripture that there was a church in each city where the gospel was received.  Within those churches elders were appointed and recognized (Acts 14:23; 15:2-6; 20:17; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5).  The local churches were self-supporting and self-governing but worked in community with other churches to meet needs as they were made known.  Itinerant brethren (Eph 4:11-14) would share as the Lord worked and gave utterance so that all the churches were teaching, believing, and operating in similar fashion.

What happened?
Then, as now, internal and external forces worked on the churches.  Persecutions and heresies were common enough to recognize the ablest man in the church to be the primary care for the flock with the elders assisting.  We know that in the second century Ignatius of Antioch had been so designated, and he mentioned others as well.  For the next couple of centuries, the bishops worked within a framework of councils to guide doctrine and practice, working as a type of world-wide or region-wide elder board.  Over time, however, some cities and their bishops claimed preëminence because of past political and apostolic prestige.  By the time of Leo the Great in the fifth century, Constantinople and Rome were the recognized heads of the Eastern and Western halves of the church respectively with a full-fledged hierarchy of ecclesiastical authority.

What now for PC(USA) and LCMS?
The PC(USA) has abandoned its anchor in order to join other denominations being blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.  They are a combination of liberal and post-modern, hoping to identify with both but failing in everything save their self-aggrandizement.  On the other hand, the LCMS has not yet gone this far, but the early signs are there for destruction.  The shoals threaten, and a change of course can yet right their way.  Let us pray other gospel-believing churches not go the same direction.



¹ Please pardon the business references to the gospel and the Lord's things, but they seemed to fit the paragraph's thesis and make the point.