Is Church Politics possible?

Like many Christians, I feel ambivalent about church politics. Church politics is, of course, reported in the NT - think of the council of Jerusalem! As a human reality, the church on earth needs - and indeed is called - to order and govern its mutual life in accordance with its discipleship, to decide and affirm right doctrine, to manage common resources, and to make space for the exercise of right authority. To say otherwise is to have an over-spiritualised ecclesiology. Even the most free of free churches has to agree with this. Anarchy is not in any sense properly Christian. On the other hand, church politics as we experience it, in denominations or congregations, can be exceedingly unpleasant and a travesty of the gospel. It is possible to make it better? Here are some principles:



1 - the process is as important as the outcome. If God is truly sovereign in the church as he is in the world, then it is not necessary to use means that are not his means. His means might not be politically expedient or efficient. That means that love has a priority over outcomes.

2 - give reasons for your position that you believe, and not just reasons that are likely to persuade. Being Christian, we believe certain things about speech and its integrity to speakers. It is impossible to carry on a genuine disagreement with the possibility of mutual enrichment and edification if people are arguing merely in order to manipulate those voting. If you speak in this way, then I can not actually speak to you.

3 - seek more mutual accountability, not less. That is, the ordering of church life ought to have a realistic doctrine of sanctification. The child abuse scandals have taught us that 'trust me' isn't enough - there was a naivety about the extent to which the Christian is progressing in sanctification. Now most churches have all sorts of accountability structures in place in this area. Why not extend this to other areas of church life too? It is boring and painful, but isn't it actually right?

4 - respect the process. manipulating the process demeans the process. The law is an ass if it is treated like an ass... Church laws exist as an expression of mutual purpose and accountability. If the words and intentions of the framers of laws are twisted, then the law no longer protects the fellowship of believers. If no-one can trust anyone else, then we might as well be in the NSW state parliament. Which, if you don't know, is bad.

5 - protect ourselves from groupthink. People would much rather leave the messy business of church politics to others. It is hard work to think through church life at an organisational and theological level, and what is more, most people actually don't like conflict and would prefer to avoid it. We would much rather just do what the agenda says we ought to do and live harmoniously. This pattern does not lead to wise or mature church-political processes. Those entrusted with decision-making ought to be diligent, or give up their votes to someone else.

6 - practice agreeable disagreement. That is, it ought to be possible to strongly disagree without casting doubt on the other person's salvation. And the 'winners' in any decision ought to seek reconciliation if necessary with the 'losers' - indeed, it is their responsibility to do so. Don't label those you disagree with as defensive. Also: understanding and agreement are not the same...I can actually understand you and still not agree with you. Please don't keep shouting!

7 - take the long view. Christians understand history in a particular way. We don't need to rush! Theological and ecclesiastical discernment takes time - sometimes generations. Patience practiced in church politics means that sometimes thirty years thinking about a particular issue isn't enough.

8 - don't pretend that political acts are somehow not political. There's nothing wrong with them being political. The processes of lobbying and grouping together to urge for change are not in themselves wrong. On the contrary, they are perfectly appropriate to an exercise of church government. What really stinks is when someone exercises or achieves political power in a church context and calls it something else - spiritualises it so that it doesn't appear to have all the supposedly grubby aspects of politics. If we can call it 'politics', then when can judge it for what it is. Indaba groups are not somehow more spiritual or less political that a synodical style with parliamentary rules! They are just different.

any other ideas?

Notes on Humility II

1 Peter 5:1-4

1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Peter's address to the elders of the church both upholds and relativises the order of church government here. It is as an equal, not as a superior apostle, that he addresses the eldership: he makes his appeal to them in terms of their shared expectation and status, not in terms of their difference. By doing so he shows them exactly what he wants them to do. He recalls for them the twin poles of suffering and glory that have dominated the letter, and which are the frames on the Christian life. Humility does not mean not leading. The exercise of humility does not mean that there is no authority or power involved. But rather, it means the service and care of those who are lead. Note that this is to be real heartfelt and eager care, not reluctant and merely dutiful care. This is not the description of a professional, or a bureaucrat; there is not the kind of exchange economy of labour here in speaking of eldership. The elders of the church were most likely quite literally 'olders', not a seperate class of individuals called to a particular life-long ministry. They are simply senior, and entrusted with the care of the flock.

They are to exercise the function of overseers (vs 2). I think this passage is a great example of how, in the NT, the form of church government is quite flexible. There is order, but not a specific order as later evolved in terms of bishop, priest, deacon; nor a kind of pristine egalitarian early church presbuteral church government model. The functions of church ministry are there: oversight, eldership, pastoral example, diaconal service and so on; but these are not attached to specific titles and offices as a hard and fast rule.

For further reading: JB Lightfoot's 1888 Philippians Commentary has a great piece on 'The Christian Ministry'. Wonderful.