Reviews for Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity

The average rating for Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-10-17 00:00:00 Maria Ziegler What is church polity? And is it really a central issue? And can one model really be called the 'most Biblical'? These questions are all addressed in Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views. [This is a reduced review from my blog: ] Editors Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman have brought together five contributors to present their case for a particular form of church government. Each author presents their case, and then the other four respond with areas of agreement and/or criticism. Here are the contributors and their positions: Daniel Akin: Single Elder/Pastor Robert Reymond: Presbyterian structure James Garrett: Congregation-Led Paul Zahn: Episcopalian structure James White: Plural Elder-Led I have mixed feelings about this book. It was informative, but uneven. My enjoyment and understanding rose and fell depending upon the author! It felt as if the authors were playing by different rules, since some believe that the NT doesn't give enough information to prove one view over the others. Some may see this diversity as a strength, but I think the book would have been more effective if all authors defended their view as being the most Scriptural. This would have leveled the playing field and probably would have led to more interaction with the texts that others used in their presentations. Akin, Garrett and White all presented a form of Congregationalism. One could argue that having three presentations devoted to one view is unbalanced or unnecessary. However, Garrett and White's positions are really quite different. In contrast, Akin's wasn't unique enough from either of theirs, especially considering he argued for a permissible model, rather than one he saw as best or even beneficial. A few of the authors took pot shots at non-denominational churches and/or mega-churches and their (supposed lack of) polity. Since I attend Calvary Chapel, I was a bit defensive to the charge of such churches not taking polity seriously, especially considering some of the authors didn't see their own view as being objectively Biblical! A chapter attempting to defend a non-denominational model could have been worthwhile addition. Conclusion Does this book succeed? It depends what you want from it. If you want to read authors all arguing for their position from Scripture, this may not be the best book to buy. However, this is never promised in the book internally so I can't criticize it too strongly on this basis. If you want introductions to some of the key issues and positions, and to see how others would respond to these presentations, this would be worth looking into. Since I feel that the contributions could have been stronger, I'm a little hesitant to endorse it. Special thanks to Jim Baird and B&H Academic for providing a review copy of this book!

Review # 2 was written on 2007-10-08 00:00:00 Cheryl Hartmann The various church polity structures are presented (The Singular Elder led Church, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, The Bishop Led Church, Plural Elder led Church) by men in their respected camps. After each presentation there are rebuttals from each contributer. I found that it was refreshing to hear each argument clearly presented from biblical, historical, practical, and experiential angles. The rebuttals were not costic, but honest and charitable. At the end of the book I came away with a greater understanding that there probably is one clear way of polity that God knows, but He decided NOT to be too clear about it Scripturally to us. Therefore, church polity is more of a dynamic that each church must decide based on biblical convictions. Some things are clear (i.e., Elders, Deacons, Priesthood of all believers, etc.), but the exact details of how this fleshes out in polity is NOT clear. Therefore, instead of being bound by non-essentials that divide, churches should stand on what is clear biblically then be free in their interpretation of implementation. Also, church history arguments were presented in each camp to support their views but caused the most division between their viewpoints; however, there was the most agreement when each used Scripture to describe their viewpoint (commonality) until they went further to apply how to implement what they found in the Scriptures.