CHAPTER 1

An Opening Statement

I remember much about the weekend I was installed as pastor of"The Little Red Church;" but the thing that replays most often inmy mind is a one-sided talk my dad had with me on the way tobanquet ceremonies held that weekend. During that conversation,Daddy, who at the time, had no church or Christian association,challenged the years of study and training I had received. He said,"If you want to do well in this church, you have to learn the playersand play the game. The Church is all about politics." Because he wasmy daddy I didn't debate him. I could have, but I didn't. I wanted to,but I didn't. I should have, but I didn't. Instead, I nodded in sarcasticapproval, hoping the conversation would end. A few seconds later,it did. I remember the silent response I gave in my head, and I'venever shared it until now. When he told me that the Church was allabout politics, I said to myself (almost under my breath) "That's theproblem!" Politics, I thought, is the tool of democracy. The Church,while it definitely has democratic procedures, is not a democracy,but a theocracy. The word democracy has as its prefix "demo,"meaning "society of people." It's the same prefix that shows up in thewords "demography" and "demonstration," both involving people.A democracy is, simply put, a government ruled by the standardsof its people. The word "theocracy," on the other hand, has as itsprefix a portion of the word 'theos,' which is the Greek word forGod. It's the same prefix that shows up in the words "theophany"and "theology," both having to do with God. In short, a theocracy isa government ruled by the standards of God. I chose not to respondto Daddy that day for fear I would have been disrespectful. The goodnews is that God Blessed my prayers and Saved Him. The bad newsis that Daddy is not able hear this explanation. I think that now, hewould appreciate it.

A few years ago, while helping my daughter Ariel prepare for her8th grade United States Constitutional exams, I thought it would beinteresting to compare the language of democracy to the language oftheocracy, the U.S. Constitution to the Bible and the First Amendmentto the First Commandment. Surface observations showed me thatthe language of democracy and theocracy both yield popular phrases.The most popular democratic phrase in the Constitution is "we thepeople." It is a phrase that is repeated throughout the Constitution;intending to declare citizens of this land will expect and enforce. Thecomparable theocratic phrase in the Bible is "thus saith the LORD."This phrase declares what God, as the Maker and Ruler of Heavenand earth, expects and will execute. The first phrase is limited tothese lands. The second transcends all lands, both on earth and inHeaven.

More in-depth observations taught me something very interesting;which system of government is flawed and weak, and which systemis comprehensive and strong.

The opening words of the First Amendment demonstrate thedeficiency of democracy. They state that "Congress shall make no lawrespecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof ..." These statements are better known as the "freedom ofreligion" clauses of the Constitution. Now, let's look at the sufficiencyof God's First Commandment in Exodus 20:1-3:

"And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land ofEgypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (KJV)

Ted Pike, noted historian and leader in the National Prayer Network,says in his documentary The Other Israel, that "God gave the Hebrewsthe loftiest, the most upright literature and ethics the world has everknown; yet when they turned their back on Him, they produced theTalmud, a work that has aptly been called, 'a monument to humanfolly.'" The Law of Moses was replaced with their own oral traditionsand they revered it above God's Word. In essence, they did whatsome churches have done with Robert's Rules of Order, The HiscoxStandard Baptist Manual and constitutions and bylaws.

These kinds of creations clearly give way to Biblical defiance.When thinking about the U.S Constitution, we have to wonder ifit complements God's Word or contradicts it. It may be argued thatthe nation's "founding fathers" didn't expect "religious freedom" topull people away from the God of the Bible. The interpretation ofthe First Amendment; however, has the potential to open too manydoorways that lead to idolatry. This "religious freedom" clause hasbrought about a nation with many religions; a direct contradictionto God's First Command! The second President of the United StatesJohn Adams, in the "Treaty of Tripoli" wrote,

"As the government of the United States of America isnot, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion."

That is pretty surprising considering it was penned by the secondPresident of the United States. I found it interesting investigatingthe other "Founding Fathers'" views on religious expectation forour country. Some may also want to argue that all religions worshipthe same god. That simply is not true. There is only one True andLiving God. Anything or anyone else acknowledged as such is anidol. People who do this are guilty of idolatry. The sufficiency ofGod's Commandment leaves no room for failure. However, theFirst Amendment invites it. The document of democracy has beenamended 27 times. The document of theocracy has never beenamended. This is evidence that God's system is better, stronger andmore thorough than man's. And, let's face it, whenever anything isleft to people, they always mess things up. In a democracy, peoplehave the right to vote their conscience. In Church, we are called touphold God's Will. This book is about why God's theocracy worksbetter in Church than democracy does. To add a little leverage tohelp us choose God's Way, let's keep the following Truth in mind:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways myways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higherthan your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8,9, KJV)

What an indictment against man! We'll never connect with Godtrying to do it our way. Here's an idea; why not just do it His way?Doesn't that seem like the best way?

CHAPTER 2

Problematic Church Leadership Models

Every church is managed by one of three types of Church Government.Dr. Wayne Grudem, one of my Seminary Professors at TrinityInternational University, presents a thorough treatment of those typesin his book, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.In the section on church government, he says that the Episcopalian,Presbyterian and Congregational models are the main models ofchurch governments. The Catholic church is totally different fromany of these. Its leadership model begins with priests on local levels,moves up to bishops, archbishops, cardinals; and, ultimately, a pope.Catholic order begins with many and ascends to one. This is similarto the model I will present; but it is important that my readers areclear that the absolute authority in my model is the Lord, not aman. Grudem notes that, of the three, the Congregational model isthe most common system of government among American Baptistchurches. In recent years, though, I have noticed that more than justthe denomination of Baptists is plagued with this way of thinking.Among others are "Sanctified," "Pentecostal," "Word churches"and even some "non-denominational" ones. In one of our manyconversations, the late Deacon Franklin Steele of the MonumentalBaptist Church of Chicago told me that "the churches today are theworst I've ever seen because they are being governed by the peopleand not by God!" Herein lies the crux of our entire discussion, not somuch about Baptist churches, but that because other denominationshave been influenced to think along similar lines concerning churchgovernment. Many churches across denominational lines have set upa democratic form of government instead of a theocratic one. Weknow that a democracy is a government ruled by its people, and atheocracy is a government ruled by God. It utilizes people to do, butauthorizes God to be God. It may sound weird to hear that God hasto be "authorized" in our churches; but, that is exactly what needsto happen again. The word 'Ichabod' comes to mind, which means"the glory of the LORD has departed." By asking God's Glory toreturn, a church can declare, "authorize" and establish once and forall, that its Ruler and Head is Jesus Christ. This may be a strangethought, but the harsh reality is, not every "church" is a "Church."Many "churches" are moving farther and farther away from theauthority of God's Word to the opinion of the people. In manychurches polity has taken the place of principle. Congregants areable to quote the Hiscox Standard Manual, Robert's Rules of Order andchurch bylaws better than they can God's Word. How tragic! What'sworse is this anomaly is defended by some in church who argue weneed "something" to govern us.

I'm reminded of a man in church who challenged me. I mentionedin a meeting that something was not proper in church operations andwent on to say that it wouldn't be so in a Methodist Church. Theargumentative man countered telling me "We are not a MethodistChurch!" I then said that this particular procedure would neveroccur in a Presbyterian Church. Of course the gentlemen responded,"We're not Presbyterian!" I finally said, "Well, aren't we a Biblechurch!?" I so DESPERATELY wanted him to say that we were;but, for this particular person, my expectations were too high. Heinstead mentioned without waiver, "We are a Baptist church and thefinal say lies with the body, not a book!" If your mouth is wide openright now, you will be open to the solutions offered in this book.On another occasion years ago, in a discussion of church leadershipand structure, the statement was made that "each church should bean entity in and of itself; having no council or ecclesiastical bodyto ask of, or answer to ..." Formerly this was the norm for just theBaptist Church. Not so anymore. It is undoubtedly not the onlydenomination that operates autonomously. A Non-denominationalChurch may very well be. Let me say again that I'm highlighting thesystem of government that has been so prevalent in the Baptist Churchbecause it is becoming more prevalent in the world of Church. I alsoam citing these "democratic models" as examples on which to buildmy arguments and as examples of what no to do. But before doingso, I will briefly describe the first two models that professor Grudemnotes in his book.

The Council's Way

The first two systems Grudem cites related to how councils transactchurch business. Both the Episcopalian and Presbyterian systems ofgovernment both utilize variations of councils; also called dioceseand archdiocese. In the Episcopalian model the officer in chargeof a local parish is a rector (sometimes called a priest) accountableto bishops who, in turn, are accountable to an archbishop. Thefollowing diagram illustrates this structure:

ArchbishopBishop Bishop BishopRector Rector Rector Rector Rector RectorCongregation Congregation CongregationCongregation Congregation Congregation

The accountability aspect of this system is a plus for churches. I willspeak more about accountability later in A Proper Leadership Model, TheOrganism Structure, The Legs of the Church. Systems of accountabilitydo not totally prevent abuse. Only a leader's commitment to Biblicalstewardship can do that. This type of government emphasizes Churchhierarchy. This is dangerous, considering man's natural desire to beexalted. There seems here to be too much room for one to fall intothe traps of pride and arrogance. Grudem notes that nowhere in theNew Testament is such a system upheld.

In the Presbyterian system of government, each local church electselders to a session; with the pastor of the church being one of theelders, in equal in authority to other elders. The diagram belowillustrates this structure (with E in the diagram standing for elders):

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In this system, each local church elects elders to a session. Thoseelders are in turn accountable to a presbytery that is overseen by thegeneral assembly. The general assembly may exercise authority overall of the denomination's churches throughout a country or region.While I appreciate systems of accountability, the main problem withthis model (as I will discuss further in a few moments) is pluralisticheadship. Many in favor of this model use Acts 14:23 as Scripturalevidence for having multiple elders in a church. That does not giveroom for making the argument that the office of elder is wherechurch authority rests. This single Scripture must be interpreted inlight of all Scripture. In light of all Scripture, the office of pastorhas to be thrown in the mix. We'll discuss that when I present myleadership models.

I have not spent time critiquing the first two of Grudem's modelbecause churches that utilize them are established in their structuresand can't change unless they secede from the denomination. Thesechurches are not freestanding. In other words, structural issues arenot church issues, but rather denominational ones. Leadership modelsare based on the entire denomination, not one of the churches init. The churches I'm targeting are autonomous enough to considerrestructure. They are free standing, and do not necessarily have abishop, apostle or pope to answer to. It is the congregational systemof government that I wish to focus on. Not only is it as Grudem says;among "the most common ..." systems of government in America,I'll also argue that it is the most dangerous to the Body of Christ.Let's examine why.

The Congregation's Way

William J. Knaub's September 2010 article "Biblical Leadership and theNew Covenant Priesthood", appearing in the Battered Sheep Publication,argues in favor of congregational leadership. He opens the articlestating "the structure and function of the local church is a topic towhich most Christians give little thought ..." He quotes AlexanderStrauch, the author of Biblical Eldership (Lewis and Roth, 1995) "Formany people, the issue of church government (also referred to aschurch polity, church structure, church organization, church orderor the ministry) is as irrelevant an issue as the color of the churchpews. Indeed, for many people, the color of the church pews inspiresgreater interest! To these people, the organizational structure ofthe church really doesn't matter." This couldn't be further fromthe truth. Mr. Knaub is severely mistaken; in fact, I'm going toargue that the opposite of Mr. Strauch's statement is true. And itis even true across denominational lines. The structure of churchgovernment; in particular, the question of "who has the power" isa topic that I addressed in the introduction of this book, one I willexpound further upon this in the section "Who's The Boss?". This isa topic that often permeates churches. Members wonder where they"fit in" in the organizational structure, who they are "under" (orover) in that structure and how much "say so" they have in churchdecisions. These are the concerns of a person in a democracy. Withtheir attention set on those things, there is often less concern for realMinistry; and, in these cases, the devil has successfully distractedchurch members. Baptists however, are not the only ones who arevictims of these distractions. If we look and listen closely to the voicesin other denominations, we will undoubtedly hear this mentalityoozing from their pews as well. The thoughts of where I "fit in" andhow much control I have are at the essence of human nature, not anyparticular denomination. Let's examine a Biblical personality whoshows us this is true. The wife of Zebedee was a woman who waseager to gain a type of "congregational control":

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons,worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant thatthese my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the otheron the left, in thy kingdom." (Matthew 20:20, 21, KJV)

The real issue here is the woman's concern for her security. That wasthe driving force behind her request. Because of how women reliedon men in those days to gain status in a community, Zebedee's wifeprobably thought she had to be proactive in her efforts to set herselfup in Heaven. Thus, she asks for positions of importance for her sons.Perhaps she thought that if she could broker a deal with the Lord thatgave her sons special rank, she would, undoubtedly as their mother,have been privy to the privileges of her sons and become "somebody"in Heaven. Then, as a member of Jesus' Heavenly congregation, shewould "fit in", have a special place, and maybe even have a "say so"in the ears of her sons, who would have been leaders there. This iswhat I mean by "congregational control." One of the reasons I writethis is to free congregations of the fight over this control. Anotherreason is to alleviate them from the pressure of wondering what atrustworthy "system of government" is. So far, we have looked at oneother leadership model. Here we will examine what I have dubbed"The Congregation's Way." In order to fully appreciate the modelsI've designed and recommend in this book, we have to considerhow the problematic models look outside the Church. Whetherin the Church or out of it, these models don't work. For instance,let's think about the way our nation conducts politics. The way ournational democracy works is similar to the notion I've described as"congregation control." What we've done in our country, in essence,is what Zebedee's wife was trying to do for herself when she got toHeaven. She wanted to send her own representation to power. Whileit is a system our country has depended on for centuries, it doesn'twork well in the Church. To send a person to represent you meansthat they work for you. In Church, however, we are all servants ofthe LORD.