Church Governance
Four forms of church governance exist:
- The hierarchal form of church governance is built upon an
individual or a small committee, who is/are responsible for making
the major, momentous decisions of the church. The Roman Catholic Church
is the archetype of hierarchal church governance. At the head of this
church its leader, the pope, when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne),
has absolute authority. Whether by a papal bull or by a papal encyclical,
the pope's directives are expected to be accepted without modifications,
additions, or deletions.These directives are expected to pass down
through the archdiocese (archbishopric) to the diocese (bishopric)
to the local parish congregations without modification or change of
any kind. The dictates of the leader are binding upon all members
of the church.
- The episcopal form of church governance has some of the elements
of the hierarchal system, but is less centralized. This form has no
supreme pontiff; the authority resides at the level of the bishop.
Each bishop is almost a law unto himself in terms of authority. Naturally,
some bishops exercise more autocratic authority than do others, but
the running of the dioceses are largely in their hands. The Episcopal
Church of America follows this form.
- The third form of church governance is the congregational form.
Here every church has its own authority. One can see this kind of
governance best in the Congregational Church, the Baptist Church,
the Church of Christ, and similar churches. While a loose organization
exists among these churches, nevertheless, each church has its own
autonomy. For example, the church congregation has the right to hire
or fire its own pastor. The church handles its own finances and accepts
special missionary projects.
- The fourth form of church governance is the representative form.
In this form, the emerging structure of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church had most of its authority placed in the hands of the local
churches. As other areas of organization developed, first the local
conferences, then the General Conference, much later the unions, and
finally the divisions of the General Conference, each one was delegated
responsibility. Every level was designated to serve the needs of the
level whose representatives had elected its leaders. But ultimately
all the levels received their authority from the local churches and
served the needs and interests of these rapidly expanding local church
communities. The conferences were not only established to serve the
needs of the local churches but also, more importantly, to plan and
organize the expansion of the work into areas, towns, and cities where
there was no Seventh-day Adventist presence.
(Excerpted from Organizational
Structure and Apostasy, by Colin and Russell Standish, pages 53-55)
Church Governance in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Today, although the Seventh-day Adventist Church still has the vestiges
of the representative form of church governance, in reality it has shifted
toward the hierarchical form.
Indeed, the president of the General Conference
has stated that the Adventist Church is second only to the Roman Catholic
Church in its hierarchical structure. --Ronald Lawson, Geopolitics
Within Seventh-day Adventism.
In the case, Proctor versus General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
of 1986, the General Conference sued Derek Proctor, a teacher at Andrews
University, who had established a book store and was markedly undercutting
the prices for books from the Review and Herald and Pacific Press
Publishing Associations. The General Conference won the case, largely
on the assertion that next to the Roman Catholic
Church the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the most hierarchically
organized church in the United States. --Colin and Russell
Standish, Organizational
Structure and Apostasy, page 106.
Other links
- Roman
SDA. Flash animation describing the similarities between the Roman
Catholic Church and the Adventist Church.
|
