A Discussion Of Church Governance That Are Practiced Today
There are basically five types of church governance that are practiced in Zimbabwean Christian landscape today. Of these five, three are the traditional and universally known categories, namely episcopal, congregational, and Presbyterianism.
| A Discussion Of Church Governance That Is Practiced Today. |
The other two, that is, connexional and that of mega-churches
or one-man led churches hybrids or modifications of the three and they are usually
prevalent in Methodist Church in Zimbabwe and other African Independent
Churches (IAC) while the aforementioned three are mainly evident in missionary
established churches in Zimbabwe.
This paper will seek to define these four
types of governments, indicating the local denominations were such types are
prevalent. The paper will further highlight the advantages and disadvantages of
each of the types of governments as applied in the Zimbabwean context today.
This paper will use the phrases church polity and church government style
interchangeably.
This
paper will start by looking at the Episcopal
system of church governance. Livingstone (1977:175) defines episcopacy or an episcopal
system as a “system of the church governed by bishops.” The bishop (or other
designations depending with the denomination) will be technically the
‘episcopal head’ of the church. In most cases such a head is vested with
executive (and sometimes worryingly sweeping) powers. Most mainline churches in
Zimbabwe do use this system of church governance. These include the Methodist,
Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran among others.
On
the strength of episcopacy, Mathew (2012) argues that “Bishop
led church provides a strong structure… The Bishop thus can make decisions that
keep the church unified…, and the confusion that would exist in congregation
led churches or Presbyterian churches would be replaced by the order of the
bishop”. Again, this system is able to respond quickly to heresy and take
corrective action against such ministers, mainly because of the centralization
in the way ministers are appointed. Secondly, it is easier for more resourced
assemblies to share resources with the disadvantaged ones as resources are also
centralised. Congregations also will have a shared vision that they run with
and that makes supervision, correction and monitoring relatively easy for the
leadership.
On
the other hand, episcopacy has its own disadvantages that people need to look
into. Because of the executive powers vested in one person, there is bound to
be tendencies for dictatorship in this kind of system. Further, appointments
may end up being compromised by nepotism, tribalism, favouratism, among other
compromises at the expense of meeting the real needs of the organisation.
Secondly,
we will look at the Presbytarianism
as a type of church government. Presbyterianism is “a form of ecclesiastical
polity wherein the church is governed by presbyters” according Livingstone
(1977:413). Unlike, congregationalism, presybetarianism may not be seen as
purely democratic “ because elders/overseers govern according to their
obedience to the Word of God and with the authority that Christ has given
them.” Mathew (2012).
This
system of governance has its own advantages and challenges. The advantages of
this system will include what its proponents view as the leadership polity
congruent to the New Testament church. Longman (1977:413) lends credence to
this observation by arguing that “its proponents in the 16th and 17th
Centuries regarded it not as an innovation but a restoration of the apostolic
model found in the NT, and many held it to be the only legitimate form of
church government”. Again, because ministers are elected by the people one
would assume that such ministers are deemed to be relevant to the needs of the
local assembly and would have the requisite skills to meet those ministerial or
pastoral needs, unlike a situation whereby central authority does the “hiring”
and “firing”. Another advantage, especially in a Zimbabwean context, is that
there is promotion local initiative and hence accountability is easy to follow.
For example, in the area of fundraising: people are motivated to give because
what funds are used for meet their needs and such funds can be easily accounted
for locally.
Thirdly
the congregational type of
governance is yet another to consider. “this is form of church polity which
rests on the independence and autonomy of each local church” (Longman
1977:125). In this type of church polity there is no centralization of
authority. Mathew (2012)
further adds that in an ideal congregational polity “the idea
is that the entire congregation is responsible for the decision making of the
church.” Again, in
such churches, “the majority rules, the democracy style of government where the
people vote to elect their pastor and the church board to administer the
affairs of the church” Lim (1997). Churches practicing this type
of governance in Zimbabwe include Baptists (various denominations in Zimbabwe),
United church of Christ, and United Congregational Church of Southern Africa,
among others.
One significant feature of a congregational system is
that “ a congregation led church will make decisions as a church instead of
leaving the control and thinking to leadership” Mathew (2012).
This can be both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in that there is
congregational ownership of decision making process and hence such decisions
are easy to implement. On the other hand, this slows down decision making
process and the risk of the process being hi-jacked by ill-informed elements I
very possible and hence compromising the quality of the final decision made.
Connexional
polity is another
type of church governance practiced in Zimbabwe. This polity is modification of
the episcopal polity. It a “combines a loose episcopal hierarchy with a bottom-up structure, centered around
small groups of congregations called circuits”. This system is prevalent
in (and unique to) the Methodist church in Zimbabwe and other smaller
denominations. While committees seem to bring some form of democracy in
decision making, they tend to add unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and often
times those with more influence despite their spirituality will hi-jack the
process and hence compromise the decision-making process.
Finally
there is a mushrooming of mega churches
that follow a combination of the styles above. Most of them are effectively
one-man (sometimes one-woman) led churches with no structures of accountability
at all. These are modeled after the typical American Tele-Evangelists led
churches. In instances like those the risk for doctrinal error is prevalent for
there are no regulatory or boards of accountability that can hold the leader
accountable.
The
above categories are generally an approximation of the types of church
governments in Zimbabwe. As noted above, one should always bear in mind the
fluidity of most church denominations in Zimbabwe, as in not having a fixation
with one form of church polity. Sometimes they have a modification or a hybrid
of several in one. This is a more accurate assessment of the African
Independent Churches in Zimbabwe.
References
Lim, Israel CS (1997)
‘Church Government’, Available at: http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/david-leadership/d02-church-government.htm
(Accessed 22 May 2014).
Livingstone, EA
1977. The Concise Dictionary of The
Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mount, Mathew (2012) ‘Compare and Contrast of Five Views of Church Government’, Yahoo Contributor Network, 24
December. Available at: http://voices.yahoo.com/compare-contrast-five-views-church-government-11945508.html
(Accessed 22 May 2014).
No comments: