Just Some Thoughts On Church Governance

A couple of weeks ago I noted with some degree of delight the unexpected opportunity to actually share some theological "stuff" with members of my church council. In that entry I shared what my thoughts were on evangelism in the modern world. Today, I'm going to the other issue I had the chance to talk with my Council about - ecclesiology.

I admit right off that this is somewhat denomination-specific. The United Church of Canada is currently engaging in what's being called a "Comprehensive Review." Put simply, in the light of challenges related to finances and membership, we're thinking about how to be and do "church" in the 21st century. One of my criticisms of the United Church over the years is that it often doesn't do ecclesiology (the theology of the church) very well. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say that we often don't do it at all - which is a problem, because if you set out to reform the church without relation to what the church is supposed to be with reference to Scripture and broader theological disciplines, then, well, you're probably not going to accomplish very much. I'm not actually going to discuss the Comprehensive Review. Our congregation has expressed a willingness to participate; now, we await the invitation. I am aware of the fact, though, that as the "crisis" approaches, there are a number of things already being done which could well change the nature of the United Church, all of which relate in one way or another to the structure of church governance we use. By "church governance," of course, I mean the system by which the church makes its decisions. Broadly speaking there are three options: congregational, conciliar and episcopal. A congregational form of governance is one in which each congregations governs itself completely. A conciliar system essentially is a federated system of governance, where there are specific people called to leadership at various ascending or descending (depending on where you begin and how you see the system operating) levels of church governance, who make decisions specific to their level. An episcopal system is governance by bishops. There can be variations. A congregational system can also be conciliar (so the congregation is governed by elders, essentially, rather than by the congregation as a whole) and an episcopal system can be either limited (with bishops working in tandem with various "councils" and/or having mostly moral authority to offer guidance or it can be absolute, where the bishop makes the decisions.

I've argued for years that the United Church is sliding toward a congregational form of governance - a slide accelerating as time goes on. Based on my experience with congregations, I would say that 90-95% of the people sitting in United Church pews on an average Sunday (and that might be a conservative estimate) don't especially care about the higher courts of the church or what they're doing. They might be oblivious to them, they might be disinterested in them or they might be antagonistic toward them - but one thing most people sitting in the pews would agree on is that they don't want these "higher courts" interfering in the life of the congregation. I also believe that eventually the United Church will adopt a congregational system of governance - or else it will die - for the simple reason that the church can't continue to exist when its members simply don't support its structure. Most councils are already finding volunteers in short supply. But there's a pushback. The higher levels of the United Church in some cases are starting to establish what look very much like episcopal systems.

I'm aware of one of our Conferences, for example, which is requiring that applications for vacant ministry positions be sent to the Conference Office for confidential matching with vacant pastoral charges. That, of course, shifts the balance of power very much toward the Conference Office, making the Conference Officer the gatekeepers for ministers wanting to apply to vacant pastoral charges. It also seems to me to violate the polity of the United Church, which states in the newest edition of our Manual: "The Joint Search Committee [a committee made up of members of the pastoral charge and the presbytery] is responsible for setting the process that it will follow." Hmmm. What if the Joint Search Committee wants to set a process that DOESN'T involve the Conference Office dealing with those who are sending applications for the vacancy? Seems to me based on that section of the Manual that they have the right to say to the Conference Office, "butt out. We'll involve you in the process we set at the appropriate time." Personally, I hope some Search Committees say that - because what we see here is structural change to the church (which is more important than it might sound) being made not on the basis of ecclesiology, but more likely on the basis of "efficiency" and "fear" - fear that some legal mistake is going to be made by the Search Committee. Efficiency and fear are not legitimate grounds for making changes to how the church governs itself. And that's optimistic. Of more concern is the possibility that this particular structural change is a control issue! No. Not in the United Church. It couldn't be.

For what its worth, I think that limited episcopacy is an arguably biblical form of church governance. Paul's letters clearly demonstrate that there are those who are recognized as being in a position to be sought out for advice and to offer that advice (and perhaps to give even unsolicited advice.) The tenor of some of Paul's letters also suggest that this was a limited episcopacy, as it's clear that not all the churches he wrote to actually abided by his wishes! I'm unconvinced that the type of governance we have right now (the multi-layered conciliar system) is biblical at all. I see no warrant in the New Testament for churches that turn over areas of responsibility to joint decision-making. I also think that congregational governance is biblical - perhaps the most biblical form of church governance that we have.

My concern is that this will turn into a battle over power - who gets to control what in other words - and that there will be precious little theological reflection done on the very complex question of "what is the church?" That's a question I think we have to come to terms with before we even think about reviewing our governance structures or mission. It's work that I don't think we do anywhere near well enough!