Virtually any form of church organization will get the job done - somehow. Are there basic principles that will improve our efforts?
The Roman Church, with its tight hierarchical structure, has been 'successful' for nearly two thousand years. Dozens of other organizational forms have come and gone and been used to 'preach the Gospel' and care for the church. There have been successes, and failures.
Given the persistence of the Roman Church down the centuries, is that the well-tried way to go? Well, that 'from-the-top-down' structure causes misgivings. For example, when a doctrine is passed down with authority from a revered leadership it may indeed be accepted by the masses. But what if it is error? Error that blocks salvation - heresy? That's how so much error became deeply rooted in the visible church.
How To Build the Church?
More, such a structure, with many steps on the career ladder, leads - given human nature - to corruption. Finances are fiddled. Money is funnelled to private accounts. Embarrassing secret sin is covered over by the church authorities.
Then, of course, there's all that bureaucracy. There's an increasingly luxurious and expensive headquarters (and its 'regional offices') to build. And to staff and maintain. Empires, seminaries and private fiefdoms are founded and ever expanded. It doesn't end there. A hierarchy employs field staff - priests, ministers etc - and an army of support staff, all dependent for employment on the beneficence of the leadership. Doesn't that lead to dangerous subservience?
Resources
So where does the funding for all that come from? Surprise - from the 'little people'. Donations and tithes are for them (only) considered mandatory (a real 'membership fee'!) to support the hierarchy. And the members are required to dig ever deeper when a financial crisis arises (read: 'too much money centrally misappropriated', or law-suits to fund).
Them and Us
To ensure that proper distance and respect is observed, there's a further division of the hierarchy. There's them and there's us. There is the laity
and there is the clergy. (That idea, though, certainly didn't come from the New Testament!) This neatly divides the church into haves and have-nots. The wise and the ignorant. The clergy are at the sharp end, the laity listen or sleep in the pew.
But isn't all this structure necessary to 'preach the Gospel to all nations'? Maybe not.
Another Way
Just look at the above. In the business world, government and shareholders - and customers - would scream blue murder at such profligacy, inefficiency and mismanagement. But this is 'God's Work' - therefore unrestrained by common sense?
Isn't there an alternative? Can the Gospel be effectively proclaimed without all that waste - waste of manpower, waste of non-human resources? Are we left to devise our own way, or does the New Testament church provide such an alternative pattern? Indeed it does.
First-century Christians weren't part of a 'mega-church'. All one Body, of course, but not subject to a central authority other than Christ. They met in small groups, in homes. Their shepherd - pastor, elder - had responsibility (to Jesus Christ) to serve, to teach pure doctrine, to encourage the brethren to use their spiritual gifts, to oversee the spiritual growth and material well-being of each member of his small flock. But he was no overlord - just gifted to serve in that capacity. He suffered with his flock. Like the apostle Paul, he followed a secular occupation. Each individually gifted by Jesus Christ, the brethren served one another, grew in grace, witnessed - sometimes with their lives - to the saving power from sin of their Saviour. The Gospel prospered. There were, too, gifted evangelists who, by faith and supported by one or more assemblies, took the message far and wide, even overseas. From their knowledge of the truth and out of their experience they taught and encouraged the brethren, and appointed qualified leaders. No headquarters, no certain income, no career but the service of Christ.
Of course there was abuse. Some teachers became isolated, self-serving, heretical. But it was, unlike in a hierarchy, limited in scope. confined to the few. Brethren felt free to ignore false teaching, to move elsewhere. After all, each was - is - answerable primarily to our Head, to Jesus and to the Word of God. They were not - we are not - constrained to put up with heresy, corruption, spiritual abuse or extortion.
Sadly, the first Christians sank into the arms of a secular Roman hierarchical structure. Heresy followed. Corruption. Division. Ruin.
But no twenty-first century Church of God would fall into that vicious trap. Would they?
To comment on this article or request more information, please contact James McBride by e-mail at the comment form below.
For PDF or mailed copy, see CGOM. Excerpt from New Horizons Issue 38, March/April 2003. Edited by James McBride of the Churches of God, United Kingdom.
Go to Literature Index Page
This URL is www.abcog.org/nh/72f.htm