Just wanted to get this topic started, i will post my own opinion later.

There are three main types of church governance. I'll quote from an article by Dale A. Robbins just because it's easy:

(1) Episcopal — This system of church government considers the bishop as the principal officer. Decisions are made at levels higher than the local church, usually with prayerful contemplation toward God's will and nominal consideration of the member's opinions.

(2) Presbyterian — This form of government acknowledges that Christ alone is Head of the church, and that He rules His church by His Word and Spirit. Church officials have ministerial and declarative authority, but not legislative. They declare, explain, and apply Christ's will as the Spirit clarifies the scripture to their understanding. They do not seek to make new laws for the church. Presbyterians believe they find foundation for their form of church government in the Bible, but they readily admit that God can bless other forms as well.

(3) Congregational — This is an autonomous form of government by the church, generally by a democratic philosophy, which allows a local congregation the freedom to determine what it considers the will of Christ. The congregation governs its own affairs, however this does not suggest that it is self-governing apart from Christ's Lordship. Simply stated, the members of the congregation are given the right to determine what they consider to be Christ's will.

It seems that the Jehovah's Witnesses went from an early presbyterian system, in the days of Russell, to a hard-core episcopal system nowadays with the Governing Body.

What do you think? Which method of governance is more scriptural? And what is more effective nowadays? What it should ideally be?

Eden

 

Jehovahs Witnesses are the group in modern times to gather the anointed. The invited as jesus said would be separated into the 2 groups of wheat and weeds just before he arrives. So before that period,the "GB/FDS" were invited who were faithful and unfaithful...but asleep. When the "call went out" they all awoke. What this did was to start to make it obvious who were the wheat and weeds.

Whats this got to do with your question ? The group who call themselves the FDS/GB are weeds. In fact they are the Harlot of revelation. This group has changed in its structure because just before Jesus arrives,the weeds..apostate invited have become part of a spiritual group known as the Harlot in Revelation. They have chosen to follow the course of satan and become drunk with power.

So whatever "name' you call them by,the group has changed over the years because who will be faithful invited anointed is being determined so the number of the 144K is sealed so the Kingdom can be born. Its not Born at present. We are witnessing the birth/labour pains "signs" within the group who are invited to be part of the Kingdom.When the number is sifted by satan and free of accusation,then it can begin its rule and satans time is over.

 

JD,

While I respect your understanding as you expressed it, my question is more generic and has to do with the type of governance that has the strongest scriptural support, and what would work best in today's world.

Episcopal, presbyterian or congregational, or ...?

Eden

 

The origins of the International Bible Students group by Russell was clearly presbyterian when it came to church governance. The local elders were elected by the congregation. There weren't "circuit" nor "district" overseers to appoint church officers, nor Bethel had anything to do with their appointment at local level. This changed with Rutherford, when, under the label of "theocratic arrangement", everything began to be highly hierarchical and centralized in Bethel. In practice, the Jehovah's Witnesses went from a church governance model of the presbyterian type into a strong, centralized episcopal type of governance, especially when the "Governing Body" was introduced.

Some considerations about the appointment of diakonoi, or "ministerial servants".

Interestingly, in the first century, the so-called "Governing Body" in Jerusalem didn't appoint elders in the local congregations. As a group, the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem met to discuss theology and receive reports on the progress of the preaching work, but not to decide on administrative / overseeing matters (Acts chapter 15 and chapter 21)

However, it is very interesting to notice the account in Acts 6:2-6. When it became necessary to select men to perform non-teaching services to the congregation in Jerusalem, the apostles didn't took upon themselves the task to select those men. Instead, "the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said "It is not desirable that we [the apostles] leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business"... And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen ...and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, whom they set before the apostles; And when they had prayed, they laid hands on them".


Notice that the selection of men was made by the "multitude of the disciples", that is, the whole congregation. No doubt this involved some kind of voting. The selection and verification of the qualifications of the "seven men" wasn't up to the body of elders. It was up for the entire congregation to select men that met certain spiritual criteria. Then, once selected, they were presented to the apostles, who accepted their choice and, under prayer, appointed them.

Something else to notice: It wasn't the collective "body" of "apostles and older men" (the so-called primitive "governing body") that appointed these men; They were appointed by the apostles, on occasion acting as the original body of elders of the congregation in Jerusalem by 33 CE. Therefore, it seems to me that the scriptural procedure regarding the diakonoi (ministerial servants) involves first an election by the entire congregation that recommends these men and then their subsequent appointment as church officers is to be merely confirmed by the local body of elders, should these men meet the scriptural criteria. No traveling overseer should interfere with this process.

This is consistent with the instructions that Paul gave to Timothy, the presiding elder in the congregation of Ephesus. While Titus was a traveling overseer in the island of Crete and one of his tasks was "to appoint elders in every city" (Titus 1:5), it wasn't part of his duties to appoint local diakonoi. On the other hand, Timothy, acting as the presiding elder in the congregation of Ephesus, was the only one given specific instructions about the qualifications to be found on someone who wished to serve as diakonos. While we do not see Paul clearly giving Timothy a clear mandate to appoint ministerial servants or elders in his congregation, 1 Timothy 5:22a appears to indicate that he had such authority on a local level.

In brief, this appears to be the scriptural procedure for the appointment of diakonoi:

• First, a man (or woman) declares his willingness and availability to take on the church office of diakonoi (1 Timothy 3:1 - "aspires", "sets his heart to").
• Second, after careful consideration of the Scriptural requirements for the office, the entire congregation votes to recommend that man (or woman) to the office of diakonos. (Acts 6:2-6)

• Third, once that recommendation is made by the congregation members, the body of Elders re-examins under prayer if the recommended person meets the Bible criteria. If nothing precludes that person to take the office of diakonos, they make the appointment official and inform the traveling overseer. (Acts 6:2-6; 1 Timothy 5:22)

I'll write about the appointment of elders next.

Eden

 

Hi Eden,
It might seem that what i said was not on topic,but if we have a from of governance that has changed just before Jesus arrival because of apostacy of invited anointed who are running the org,then this is an important point. Its something that has really has impacted my thinking the last 2 years,so this is why I mention it. It doesnt matter what sort of governance we think we might be under if those "at the top" are apostate anointed. Whatever things are happening in the org,its because of apostacy not the sort of governance that might have been before the apostacy set in and is becoming obvious. Hope that clarifies why i posted what i did.