In this study of how the church will possess its Promised Land, we are taking a bit of time to examine government, because the kingdom of God is basically and first of all the government of God. Just as many conquerors in history discovered, and just as the U.S. has discovered in Iraq, it can be an easy thing to conquer a land, but an entirely different matter to govern it. As we are coming to the time when we will be possessing and inheriting the kingdom, there are practical issues concerning government in the kingdom that we need to understand. We are called to now begin taking spiritual dominion of a spiritual domain that has been assigned to us. After taking dominion, we need to govern it spiritually.
Spiritual conquest and governing are different from physical conquest and civil governance. However, when the kingdom is fully established with the return of the King, we will be engaged in both. As we proceed closer to that time, it is becoming increasingly important that we understand, live under, declare, and carry forth the kingdom of God, which is His government. This will be an increasing focus of the church in the time to come.
We spent a bit of time considering how democracy was born out of the church and how it made a considerable and great contribution to the world, but few understand how it will have a part in the government of the kingdom. There is evidence that it will. However, the key word here is "a part." In the first years of the kingdom, it will likely be a small part, but will increase as the restoration of mankind and the earth progresses, and increasing dominion can be turned back over to mankind.
We also need to keep in mind that everything being done in this age is but a type or shadow of the reality that is coming. Even the best democracy now will likely be very different from that which emerges in the kingdom age. Even the best kingdom in this age, which was probably that of King David or Solomon, was but a foreshadowing of the glorious kingdom of Jesus.
After briefly looking into democracy and how it might play a part in the coming government of God, we then began to address the more typical type of church leadership, which is the "dynamic leader" type. This has been the most common way in which the Lord has led His people throughout Scripture and history. We see this with Israel as a nation, whose purpose was to be an example of the kingdom of God on the earth, in which kings were the primary authority. However, there were elders who were also recognized and established as "judges in the gates."
The church in the first century basically followed this pattern with apostles being the primary leadership, who also established elders who served as judges and leaders on the local level. However, over the whole church there was not just one apostle or leader, but a council of apostles and elders as we see in Acts 15.
Unlike a democracy where they might have voted on an issue and the majority would have their way, these obviously came together to seek the Lord on the issues, and their final decision was what "seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit." This is a key to all kingdom government. Even though Jesus was not physically present with them, He was still the Head of His church, and still is. The true and most basic goal of church government is to know the mind and heart of Christ.
It is interesting to note that when this council in Acts 15 was concluded, James, the obvious leader of the council, said, "It is my judgment..." (italics mine). He did not say it was their judgment, but his judgment. The apostles, elders, and the people all accepted this, and resolved to send messengers to take the decision to the Gentile churches.
Concerning church government, there has been a long debate over whether one man, what I call "the dynamic leader" church government, or what is often referred to as a "coequality of elders," is the right form of church government. The "coequality of elders" also needs to be distinguished from "plurality of elders." The council in Jerusalem had a plurality, but they obviously were not coequal, as James' authority stood out above the others. You can have more than one leader, but different levels of authority.
A case can be made that each of these seemingly contradictory forms of government may have a biblical precedent. However, without question, that one person would have the ultimate authority is much more clear and prevalent in Scripture, such as in Acts 15, while the coequality is very ambiguous in Scripture, if it is in fact there at all. However, the fact that the Lord did not clearly specify in Scripture that His government should be established in a specific way is a message in itself.
The Lord loves diversity, and His obvious devotion to having exceptions to some of even the most basic principles, seems especially designed to keep us seeking the mind of the Holy Spirit in all things. We should have no problem with churches seeking to have a leadership based on coequal authority of the elders or any other form of government that is not specifically forbidden, and none are except anarchy. This does not make what we choose necessarily right, as we are often guilty of doing what we prefer and presuming it is also what the Spirit prefers, when in fact it may not be. Therefore, we must judge such choices by their fruit.
Even so, at best, the coequality of elders in authority is clearly not the New Testament form of church government some claim it to be. I once read a tract entitled, "It's Working!" about a church which had established a coequal authority eldership, and it had lasted for two years and the church was prospering under it. I was a new Christian at the time and even I thought that two years was hardly enough time to judge such a matter. Sure enough, a short time later the word was out that this coequal eldership had disbanded, and the fallout from it was not pretty.
Just because this one example, which was being touted as proof of this form of government, did not succeed does not prove that it cannot be done. It just did not work in that situation with those leaders. However, I have never seen it work anywhere in a truly dynamic, thriving church. I remain open to it being a form of church government, but not the form, or even the main form that was used in Scripture or should be used by us. At best, the coequal eldership was used by some New Testament churches. If we look at the fruit of this form of government, in its present application, it does not seem to be working well anywhere that it is used. In the churches which I have visited that claimed to have coequal elders, it was clear that one of them obviously had more authority than the others, and was the primary one that the others looked to for leadership, though none would want to admit it. This striving not to admit to the obvious seemed to me to be killing more energy and attention than was healthy.
Even with the churches and movements having the dynamic leader form of government, in Scripture, even with the dynamic leaders there was a plurality of leadership. In these cases, there was a very clear head or leader, but there was also a council of other leaders with them. As it has often been said, "Anything with two heads is a monster." It does seem that most churches, or organizations in general, that do not have one clear leader, at best have slowed progress and much of the time completely neutralized it.
The council of others that seems to always be with a leader are also not there just to keep the leader in check, though they would certainly be there to challenge what they felt to be wrong. However, their primary purpose should be to assist the leader in his leadership.
Now let's look at possible reasons why the Lord did not establish just one form of government application for His church. Just as the Lord gave a different word to each of the seven churches in the Book of Revelation, even though they existed in the same period of time, and in the same general region, every church has different needs, and possibly a need for a different form of government. It could be that a church born under a totalitarian civil government may need a more democratic form of church government to help the people become more proactive in their faith and to help them understand and begin walking in the liberty of the Spirit. Likewise, Christians who come from a more lawless environment may need to learn obedience to authority, and have need for more authoritative church government for a time. However, as the people mature, both of these types of church government may need to move toward the other in its application.
All true maturity causes and requires change. When my children were toddlers, they needed nearly constant, authoritative leadership from their parents. It seemed that we were continually saying, "Do this, but don't do that...." As they matured, they needed less oversight. When they become adults, I can no longer dictate what they do, though I may still have influence with them and counsel them from time to time. Likewise, a church that is maturing will go through similar changes. A new church may need strong and nearly continuous apostolic oversight while it is forming, but the more mature it becomes, the less they should need this as the local leadership takes more responsibility. Eventually, they may only need occasional visits from their spiritual fathers and mothers, and the visits are more relational than correctional.
Just as it is hard for many parents to give up control and authority over a maturing child, which can work to hinder the development and maturity of that child, many apostolic leaders, pastors, or elders likewise actually hinder the development and maturity of the churches they oversee by being unwilling to change themselves in their relationship to the churches. There are false apostles and false shepherds who view their ability to increasingly control those under them as evidence of maturity when it is in fact evidence of continued immaturity. Maturing Christians should certainly be growing in obedience to the Lord and respect for all authority that He has delegated, but leadership that is increasingly controlling is not promoting the obedience of true maturity.
It does seem that some of the more tragic mistakes in church history, and even many of the present problems being caused in the church, are the result of trying to force everyone and every church into the same mold. One recent example of this was how the "Shepherding Movement," also called the "Discipleship Movement" of the 1970s, tried for a time to force its methods on the Charismatic Movement. Many of the basic principles of that movement seem to have been sound and biblical, and were probably needed by many people coming to the Lord from the lawless hippie and counter-cultural movements of the time. However, when it was applied universally, it created terrible problems and confusion. The mistakes of that movement left multitudes of Christians wounded, and many to this day seem to have been neutralized from further usefulness, unable to now have a healthy relationship to a local church again.
Authority and good church government are essential for a healthy, maturing church. Misused authority or bad church government can likewise cause devastating problems. Nearly half of all Christians who are no longer in a relationship to a local church left the church after being wounded by church authority somehow. Most of the others left because there was such confusion and a lack of authority, vision, and purpose. This is an important issue that must be addressed in every church. Without having some clarity and guidelines about your church government, with flexibility of course, you are likely to have to deal with many unnecessary problems and potentially devastating ones.
One clear principle that we see with church government in Scripture is that authority and ministry are supposed to be a team effort and only really work as a team. Of course, every team needs a leader. Even the most talented team without clear, decisive leadership may operate poorly. But a team with clear, decisive leadership will be far more effective than any one man show could ever be. When the Lord began His ministry, which was to proclaim the kingdom, He started by putting together His team. He would take years to train them, let them mature through experience and mistakes, and mold them together in their right places on the team, but His team building was fundamental to His work on this earth. This, too, must be a basic devotion of every true church leader. If we do our jobs right, everyone on our team will likewise build their own teams and carry on what has been begun.
In our next study, we will briefly look at some of the basic principles of kingdom team building that have proven effective.
