Models of Church

Dr. Bounds hinted that because the true Church is spiritual, it is in a sense “invisible.” You cannot tell who is in it just because they go to church or belong to a specific denomination. At the same time, the Church meets physically to worship, so it is also visible in that sense.

What the Bible does not tell us is how to organize those visible communities. The earliest churches met in houses and tenements. We know of some that met by a river (Acts 16:13). Nevertheless, these are descriptions. They are not prescriptions for how churches should organize. 

Sometimes people assume that we should try to organize like the earliest church, but the Bible doesn’t actually tell us to. And why would we think that? Organizational structure has a significant cultural dimension, so wouldn’t it make sense to structure in ways that are most effective in particular times and places?

There are perhaps four basic ways that churches have been structured over the years: 

1. episcopal structure – a heavily structured system of hierarchical leadership such as the Roman Catholic or Anglican churches
2. presbyterian structure – a structure where leaders are elected but still have a centralized administration (Presbyterian, Wesleyan churches)
3. Congregational – a structure where individual congregations are largely autonomous (e.g., Baptist churches).
4. free churches – house churches that are not part of a larger church group might be put into the category of free churches.

In an initial post of at least 300 words, pick one of these structures and indicate what you would say the advantages and disadvantages of it might be in a particular context today. Feel free to do some additional research on these structures. Remember to respect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within our community as you engage in this discussion. 

After making your initial post, please read through the responses of your classmates and make at least two follow-up comments on a different day than your original post. These responses should contribute meaningfully to the discussion, whether by asking insightful questions, providing additional examples or perspectives, or challenging ideas respectfully. Each follow-up comment should be at least 100 words. This discussion is worth 25 points.