The War for the Church

Theocracy vs Democracy

This is a post I passed on recently on FaceBook “Church was never designed to be a democracy - it's supposed to be a theocracy where your appointed leaders actually lead by example” As I passed it on, the Lord reminded me of an incident I witnessed at a church meeting.

A certain decision had been announced and generally it was well received, but a lone voice piped up, “When do we get to vote on that please?”. Pastor paused for a moment, then he said this, “We don’t vote in this church. We are not a democracy – we are a theocracy. We have an appointed leadership and we believe that we, too, hear from God. So we make decisions on behalf of the whole church. So there is no need to vote on anything – when you hear it, it is already in place.” Then he added, with a broad grin, “And if anyone doesn’t like that – the door’s over there.” Loud round of applause from most of those present. Actually, everyone knew that, despite his good humoured approach to the question, pastor really did mean what he said about the door.

I asked the Lord why He had brought all of this to mind right now. He showed me a few things, one or two of which I will share with you now.

The main thing about church democracy is that, just like it’s civil equivalent, it produces a divided camp. Jesus said that “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Mark 3:25 This rule applies politically throughout the world. Every democratically elected government will eventually fall because they divide the nation and people vote with their feet to the other side. So it is in the church. A democratically organised church will eventually fall prey to those divisive elements and splits, arguments, and “storms in teacups” are the order of the day.

A theocratically organised church seems to be much more stable because dissention is dealt with by the leadership in, hopefully, a loving and Biblically sound manner. This does not always prevent schisms and splits, but it does make life more ordered for everyone because all changes are presented ‘de facto’ with no vote and no ensuing arguments and grumblings – well that’s the theory anyway. It is never plain sailing of course as there will always be detractors and disagreements, but these can be resolved with love, wisdom, and understanding – on both sides of course.

A democratically organised church can be much more volatile and certainly seems more open to splits and schisms – usually based around quite minor disagreements which are allowed to fester and grow into insoluble mountains. Here, a well planted seed can bring the whole structure down – We have all seen it a few times. A little bit of idle gossip, taken wrongly, and bang – you have a festering sore and a big, virtually irreparable difference of opinion on which, rather than leadership being allowed to resolve it, a totally divisive vote is taken.

I guess you can see which I prefer – theocratic. There the leadership team appoints a leader, knowing they have to work with him or her, and they have then the responsibility of “getting on with it”. It’s no cushy ride being a leader – the Word is full of advice, warnings, and cautions for a shepherd. However, the world and his brother are also full of advice too.  That’s why a good and wise leader is worth his weight in gold.