Ecclesiology

Forms of government of the “ Church ”

I. Introduction:
How should the church be governed? What is the way prescribed by the
Scriptures? On the one hand, since the Reformation there have been three forms of ecclesial
government. Each of them claims to be biblical. On the other hand, contemporary churches are
making changes and formulating new forms of government in accordance with current
demands. Below we will observe generalities of each proposal.

II. Traditional forms of government:

1. The Hierarchical or Episcopal form
1.1. The concept:

Within Protestantism this model modifies the Roman Catholic, in the sense that it eliminates
the pope but a hierarchical episcopate that exercises authority remains. It comes from the
Greek epis/scopos which means “watchman, overseer or bishop.” It consists of the right of
the bishop to consecrate and ordain other bishops, priests and deacons. This involves the
succession of bishops and the bishop's dominion over other subordinate ministers, as well as
authority over the laity. The bishop rules over the church. This is how the Catholic Church,
the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and the Episcopal Church teach. Other groups
that advocate this form of government but without granting validity to the apostolic
succession of bishops are the Methodists and the Assemblies of God.

1.2. Concept evaluation:

1.2.1. Evidence in favor:

The bishopric as the center of the church seems to have been practiced in the apostolic
church. The leadership of Peter, James and John is recognized in that. In this way, it is
possible to find certain characteristics of bishopric in the NT. At the council of
Jerusalem (Acts. 15), we see Jacobo (Santiago) serving as the main leader. Paul, for his
part, recognized him as an apostle and pillar of the church (Gal. 1:19; 2:9). It can be
noted that upon returning from his trip, Paul goes directly to a meeting with James and
all the elders of the Jerusalem church (Acts. 21:17-18).

1.2.2. Evidence against:

There seems to be no difference between the office of bishop and that of elder. The
terms seem to be used synonymously for the same job. James was not a bishop with
authority over others but rather he was the one who presided over the meeting (Acts.
15). However, in that meeting the decision was not made by one but by all (Acts. 15:22,
16:4). James, being the closest relative of the Lord (Gal. 1:19) because of his family
solidarity with Jesus, because of his just character and because he was a man of prayer,
he was the one who guided the
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 2

council.
There is no instruction on apostolic succession in the NT. Furthermore, when the Lord
commissioned his apostles he did not include any instructions regarding apostolic
succession (Mr. 3:14-19). In the early Church this practice did not appear until the second
century. The NT does not say that ordination is necessary to be ministers. The elders or
bishops succeeded the apostles but did not take their position but only their office. His
position was always different from theirs.

The episcopal form does not convincingly explain the doctrine of the universal priesthood
of believers. Perhaps this is his main weakness because his ministry depends on the
ordained clergy. The laity can assist the clergy, but they never fully fulfill the NT ideal,
where each believer uses his spiritual gifts to carry out the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12).

Advantages Disadvantages
• They have a good organization, which • Power resides primarily in the clergy.
allows them to be in contact with all their • Due to the hierarchical structure
local churches. Complex tends towards bureaucracy.
• There is choice and change of bishops • The lay members of the church, in the
annually. In practice they do not have greater
• All the bishops are equal decision-making power.
and
They share leadership in the church.

2. The Representative/Federal or Presbyterian form

2.1. The concept:

This system began with Calvin in Geneva. He stated that the church has four offices: pastors,
elders, teachers, deacons. He based his representative style of Presbyterianism on Ro. 12:8; 1
Cor. 12:28 and 1 Tim. 5:17. In this way, it promoted parity of ministries, autonomy of local
churches, but there was political control of the government as well. Above all, the synodal
guidelines of the highest officials were made in this way. Modern Presbyterian, Reformed, and
other Calvinist churches follow this system, even though they are not state churches.

The system consists of the church being governed by presbyters, elders, who represent the
government of the church. The local church is governed by its body of elders or presbytery. The
group of priests forms the Synod. This represents a larger geographical area and includes the
presbyteries. The Synod serves as a court of appeals in ecclesiastical matters. In turn, the group
of synods forms the district. The various districts form the general assembly. This is the
supreme authority of the church and is responsible for the mission of the denomination.

In the local church the session has a ruling elder, a teaching elder, and a pastor as the presiding
officer. The elders are elected by the session and the congregation governs not directly but through
its elders.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 3

2.2. Concept evaluation:

2.2.1. Evidence in favor:

The NT presents that the elders were appointed by the apostles (Acts. 14:23; Titus 1:5). The
apostles and elders were in charge of the Church according to the council of Jerusalem
(Acts. 15:4; 22-23). There was distinction of ministry among the elders (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The
passages that speak of the ordination of ministers imply the federal system.

Defenders of the Presbyterian system emphasize its order, tolerance for limited autonomy of
the local church, confessional strength, and insistence on maintaining very high
requirements for its ministers. These are chosen by the congregation and are under its
discipline, like all members. Ordination empowers the clergy to dedicate full time to
ministries that the trained layman can only perform using part of his time.

2.2.2. Evidence against:

The organizational structure is not entirely clear in the NT. The Jerusalem council does not
appear to be an example of organized authority but rather an interchurch discussion. For
example: the discussion of participating in the Antioch church was not mandatory but
voluntary; there is no evidence that Jerusalem exercised organized authority over the other
churches. Paul and Barnabas did not go to receive the doctrine of the council but to
participate in the discussion (Gal. 1:12). All of the above is of great importance because it
worked that way even though the apostles were present. On the other hand, an organized
structure should not be confused with cooperation between churches, a product of the
recognition of a basic unit. The distinction of ministries among the elders is not clear (1
Tim. 5:17), apparently everyone was to be qualified to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9).

The Scriptures contain no evidence to support the concept of one ecclesiastical authority
over multiple local bodies of believers. Theologian Louis Berkhof recognized this fact and
at the same time defended the Presbyterian system: “The Bible does not contain an explicit
mandate for the local churches of a given district to form an organic union. Nor does it
provide us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents local churches as
individual entities without any external ties.”1

Autonomy is evident in the selection of deacons (Acts. 6:3-5) and in the exercise of
discipline (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Thes. 3:6, 14-15). It appears that Paul, Barnabas, and Titus
appointed elders (Acts. 14:23; Titus 1:5), but there is no biblical support for a hierarchical
system of ordination. Furthermore, nowhere in the NT do elders exercise authority over
other churches beyond their own local assembly. While it is true that the council convened
in Jerusalem included apostles and elders, it is likely that

that was an exception.

Advantages Disadvantages

1 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology : 705.

 Forms of government of the “
church ” 4

• He system account with a base • The congregation is not independent. On

democratic. the contrary, it depends on a rather
• You can solve your problems with help complex system.
from outside (of course, always within the • You can't make your own decisions.
same organization). • The council can dominate the situation
• Easily avoid false doctrine. according to its interests.

3. The Congregational Form

3.1. The concept:
The congregational system is based on the independence and autonomy of the local church.
All members of the church, because they are believers, see themselves as “priests of God.”
Congregational government represents the earliest form of ecclesiastical order. The
congregationalists affirm that Christ is their only head and it is he who governs through the
Holy Spirit, inspiring the decisions of the gathered people. Some see a democratic form of
government here.

There are two types of congregational government. One that we could call complete
congregational and another partial. The whole was represented in the Reformation by the
Anabaptists, who practiced an autonomous system of local church government. In this
complete congregational system, the local church decides all its affairs by approval of its
members.
For its part, partial congregationalism was developed in the Lutheran Church of Germany.
There is parity of ministries and a certain autonomy of local churches, but there is political
control of the government, especially with regard to ministers and superintendents. This
form is what works in the Lutheran churches of the United States where there is no state
control.
In general terms, however, we would say that in Congregationalist churches the authority of
the church is in each local church as an autonomous unit without any organization above it
other than Christ, the head. Authority is entrusted to its members. They elect their ministers
and elders. The authority of this leadership rests on its relationship with the congregation.
Officers have no more authority than any other member. The elders are general overseers;
deacons carry out the ministry with service; The pastor has the ministry of the Word.
Almost all matters affecting the life of the congregation are decided by vote.

3.2. Concept evaluation:

3.2.1. Evidence in favor: The NT does not teach that there is an ecclesiastical
organization greater than the local church. Administrative positions have no power
outside the local church. The authority for discipline rests with the church itself (Mt.
18:15-17; 1Co 5:5; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; 2 Cor. 2:6-7). There appears to be choice in the
appointment of leaders (Acts. 6). The responsibility for sound doctrine and its practice in
the church rests with the entire church (1 Jn. 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:23).
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 5

3.2.2. Evidence against: The Church is not strictly a democracy. The head of the
Church is Christ. Although we all have gifts (1 Cor. 1:7) and we all have the Holy Spirit
(1 Cor. 6:19), we must recognize that it is not our will but the Lord's that the Church
must do.
The greatest criticism made of the congregational system focuses on the abuse of
independence to the point of having little regard for the unity of the church beyond its
local manifestation. In certain cases it could favor isolationism and the atomization of
the local church.
The complete congregational system is almost not practiced because in that case the
congregation would have to deliberate each decision and then vote. Which makes the
organization very bureaucratic and impossible to comply with in large congregations.
Advantages Disadvantages
• The church local is completely • You are in danger offallin thefalse doctrine
independent (according to the biblical and isolation.
approach). • The decisions that HE take as
• The ministry can function better without congregation, No always are the
outside pressure. better (democracy?).
• The members participate in the • Leaders do not have greater power
ecclesiastical issues. decision.
• All the elderly are equal and • The election of elders within this
They share the leadership of the church Government system is usually for life,
(there is no single pastor). They work as a therefore, there is not room for many
team. changes.
• The fact that the pastoral ministry is • The lack of a pastor can mean that in some
diluted in the congregation allows the way there is no leader to transmit the
universal priesthood of believers to be vision to the congregation.
exercised in a better way. • In this type of government the role of the
elders usually be merely
supervisory and governing, not pastoral.
• At the end of the day, there is no leader to
take responsibility.

In summary: The federal and congregational systems contain biblical elements within
themselves. Although the two systems tend to be mutually exclusive, it is possible for a church
to have a federal structure with the possibility of certain matters being discussed and decided by
the members of the congregation. Remembering the teaching of Gene Getz, we say that the
New Testament Church has a marked emphasis on people and not so much on organization. 2
For this reason, we do not find a specifically determined pattern of ecclesial government. Our
duty is to choose the form of government that does most justice to the nature of the Church of
Christ.

2 See Gene Getz, Let's Refine the Perspective of the Church (Miami, Fl.: Editorial Caribe, 1982): 104-99.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 6

111.Contemporary forms of government:

1. Contemporary theocratic government
1.1. The concept:
1.1.1. In cell churches: An example of this type of government is that exercised in the
majority of cell churches. So called, precisely, because of the cellular structure with which
the ministry, responsibilities and authority are administered throughout the membership. 3
The cellular structure almost always maintains the following hierarchy. 4 Eight to ten people
are served by a cell leader . Five to ten cell leaders are served by one supervisor . Five to
ten supervisors are served by a zone pastor , and five to ten zone pastors are served by an
area or district pastor . The zone pastors, but above all, the district pastors have direct
contact with the general pastor .
From what can be seen, in the end, all authority converges in the leader or general pastor.
This reflects a contemporary trend among growing churches. Their pastors have discovered
that, although the New Testament model is that of multiple leadership, each ecclesiastical
leadership team is chaired by one of its members. This style of multiple leadership, led by
one team member, is currently called theocratic leadership , that is: “…the government and
authority of God through a plural leadership that the Bible calls “elders,” with a directing
elder. , general pastor or point man, who is the leader of the leadership team.” 5

3 Willow Creek Community Church , the largest in North America, is a church. The Elim Church of San
Salvador, the largest in Central America, is a cell church. The Deeper Life Bible Church of Nigeria, the largest on the
African continent, is a cell church. The Full Gospel Church in South Korea, the largest in Asia and the entire world, is
a cell church (in 1994, this church exceeded 750,000 members with more than 25,000 cells. Karen Hurston, Growing
the World's Largest Church (1996): 204). Nineteen of the twenty largest churches in the world are cell churches.
4 Today, the most complete cellular structure is made up of three elements: cell, congregation, and celebration,
although many give priority emphasis to the first and the third, that is, to the cells and the celebration. A congregation
is a group of between 100 and 250 people that, in addition to being part of a cell, is grouped together in order to
establish more open, less intimate and more missionary fraternal ties. In pure cell churches, congregations are made
up of no more than twenty-five cells grouped together for special meetings or joint activities. In both cases,
congregations always have a pastor who supervises and coordinates them, maintaining the lines of communication,
authority and responsibility through the cellular hierarchy. The celebration meeting is held weekly. However, when
the church becomes too large, it is impossible for all its members to meet at the same time. Some churches with these
characteristics make preparations to meet sporadically in stadiums, coliseums and other crowded environments to
accommodate their people at least once or twice a year.
To consider all the details regarding the theology, meaning and practice of cells, celebration and congregation,
as well as the entire cellular system, see the works of C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (1980): 120-35; Juan
Carlos Miranda, Iglegrowth Manual (1985): 62-63; David Yonggi Cho, Secrets of
church growth (2000): 171-86; Dale E. Galloway, Vision 20/20 (1996): 129-87, Carl F. George, Prepare Your Church
for the Future (1992); David Yonggi Cho, Family Groups and Church Growth (1981); Joel Comiskey, The Explosion
of Home Cell Groups (2000); Larry Stockstill, The Cell Church (2000); but above all, the work of Ralph Neighbor Jr.,
Where Do We Go From Here, 2nd edition (2000).
5 Frank Damazio, Effective Keys to Successful Leadership (1993): 6. This type of leadership is called
theocratic for three reasons: (1) because it depends on the personal divine calling for the purpose of a servant leading
God's people; (2) because one of the explicit functions of the leader who performs it is to continually seek specific
direction from God for his congregation; (3) the person who performs this type of leadership, while ensuring that
everyone is accountable to a superior, while he himself is accountable to his team of fellow leaders, in a sense, him
being at the beginning of the line of authority, accountable directly to God.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 7

1.1.2. In the apostolic churches: This type of theocratic government seems to be

followed by the churches adhering to the New Apostolic Reformation movement, 6 where
the leader or senior pastor is considered the apostle of said organization. Added to this
model is the implementation of apostolic networks composed of local churches
(congregations) that, for one reason or another, voluntarily decide to affiliate with the
network. In this case, the pastors of the local churches are personally related to the apostle,
remaining under his supervision.7

In new apostolic thinking, trust lies in individuals, not in boards, committees, teams or
councils. Networks rise or fall according to personal relationships, and the most crucial
relationship in a network is the relationship of individual pastors with the apostolic leader. 8
Due to the apostle's task of supervision, the number of local churches forming the network
should be limited. Otherwise, the expected goal of joining said network would not be
achieved. What is suggested is 50 to 150 congregations or local churches per network. 9 Of
course, this number of local churches will obey the apostle who governs and supervises the
entire network.

1.2. Concept evaluation:

1.2.1. Evidence in favor: Although many have said that ministry through groups or
cells is a principle of growth, it must be recognized that it is a procedure, that is, it is
only a way of doing things. Those who propose this type of procedure with their
particular way of government maintain that this is the most biblical, historical and
universally proven for its effectiveness in fulfilling the mission of the church.

The earliest biblical record of delegation of authority and responsibilities appears in

Exodus 18:13-26. The way Moses adopted to delegate followed an ascending pattern,
where ten people were cared for and supervised by a leader chosen for their virtues, then
five of these were supervised by another more capable one, and two of these by another,
and ten of the latter, by a superior one, and them, finally, by Moses himself. This gave
excellent results for the people of Israel during the years of the Exodus (Deut. 1:12-15).

The early church followed a similar pattern, but through home groups. When the early
Christians lived in Jerusalem, they held meetings every day in their homes and in the
temple (Acts 2:42-47; 5:42). This allowed the incorporation of the thousands of people
who came to the faith of Christ into the life of the church, and thus, the explosive
growth never stopped.

For the first four centuries, the Christian church did not have buildings in which to meet.
The only places where they congregated were in homes. When persecution increased,
small groups of believers met secretly wherever possible. This structure allowed
Christianity to spread like wildfire and for the faith, put into practice and transmitted by

6 This title is used here following the concept transmitted by Peter Wagner in Earthquake in the Church : 34-
55. However, other authors have given other titles to this movement: “the neocharismatics”, “the new wave”, “neo-
Pentecostals”, “postdenominational churches”, “neodenominational churches”, “churches of the new paradigm”.
7See Wagner , Earthquake in the Church : 128-30.
8 Ibid, 131.
9 Ibid, 145-47.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 8

all Christians, to expand with incendiary speed.

During the history of the church, movements that organized lay people into small groups
multiplied rapidly. Perhaps the best examples in this sense were the monastic orders,
and the Anabaptist movement, the Pietist movement, the Moravian movement and,
above all, the Methodist movement.10 But the cell movement as it is known and
practiced today, despite what many say, has its origins in Seoul, South Korea, within
Pastor Yonggi Cho's church in the early 1960s.

As can be seen, this structure allows fluidity at all levels in three ways: communication,
transfer of authority, and accountability based on delegated responsibility. Another
advantage of this structure is that it allows each person to understand the organization of
the church, and know that they can ascend to the next higher level according to their
commitment, the development of their capabilities, and the availability of time. The
space to ascend and minister is never closed. On the contrary, it is almost always open
and waiting for more leaders willing to advance.

One of the amazing features of these types of churches is the abundance of volunteers
they have. This is called lay ministry, which contrasts significantly with the concept of a
closed church where laypeople tend to be passive observers while ministers tend to be
overworked insiders. The idea of assuming that every member of the church is a
minister comes from the Bible (1 Peter 4:10; 1 Cor. 12:11-12). This dimension of
multiple ministries allows for the fluidity of a life of the body, where the gap between
laity and clergy becomes less and less narrow.

1.2.2. Evidence against: Although the points in favor are several, a hierarchical
structure is always maintained where one person is the maximum ruler of this entire
organization. In this case, the general pastor or, failing that, the apostle is the one who
rules above all others. In this sense, starting from the top, government is always
descending.

“Strong” churches are characterized by high degrees of commitment, discipline, and

missionary zeal. There is strong leadership that makes high demands of its members.
The charismatic leader is obeyed without much question. High levels of absolutism,
conformity and fanaticism can be seen. There is very little tolerance for deviation or for
those who disagree.11

This type of leadership runs the risk of turning from theocratic to autocratic. Almost
always, this method of leadership consists, therefore, of a single person delegating and
sharing authority with other leaders, or pastors, but retaining the final say in decisive
matters. Sometimes, when someone does not share the vision of this leader or is not
willing to submit to him, then that person is encouraged to seek another field of
10 To learn more about how these movements and many others throughout church history organized their
advancement through small groups, Joel Comiskey has written a long chapter in his doctoral dissertation titled
“History of the Cell Movement” which can be consulted online at
http://members.tripod.com/celycecomiskey/small_group_research.htm . Also, see William A. Beckham chapter 11 of
his book, A Second Reformation (1995): 115-21.
11 See Wagner, Earthquake in the Church : 99-102.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 9

ministry.12 In new apostolic churches the leader generally surrounds himself with a
small group of intensely loyal, capable, enthusiastic people, with whom he forms a
closely knit leadership team. The outstanding point in this case is that the pastorates in
this government model are for life and they themselves will choose their successors.
Often the departing senior pastor will turn the church over to a son of his.

Accountability on the part of the senior pastor or apostle is not entirely clear. 13 At first
glance it seems that it does not have any type of human body to which it is accountable.
Due to his high position in the organizational structure, he is only accountable to God.
Which seems to be a special attribution that confers the same hierarchical structure of
the theocratic government.

2. A case of reform to a traditional style of government:14

The Iglesia Bautista del Centro (IEBC) of Buenos Aires will be taken as a model here
because it is one of the oldest churches in Argentina and has traditional doctrine. 15 Until 1986,
the IEBC was a relatively moderate church in its size and level of numerical growth.
According to statistics, they had a parishioner of 239 registered members, however, attendance
at Sunday worship barely reached 100 members. This climate of stagnation changed abruptly
with the constitution of the new pastoral team made up of pastors Pablo Deiros and Carlos
Mraida. Currently this church has increased its membership greatly to the point of becoming a
megachurch. Below we will try to outline the way in which this church through a joint
ministry has achieved such growth.

2.1. Proposed changes:

2.1.1. Changing the structure of pastoral ministry: Working in a multi-ministry

structure led by several ordained ministers (not necessarily pastors). The two pastors, Deiros
and Mraida, define this as an essential strategy for growth. For them it is a multiplication of
capacity, creativity and vision.

2.1.2. Development of authority and subjection according to the NT: According to

Deiros and Mraida, an organizational and operational structure of open leadership, which
tends to respect personal initiative and for leaders to act with a certain freedom, can result in
destructive disorder. Rather, a high degree of loyalty is required. The spiritual and moral
authority of pastors must be deservedly recognized and respected. Leaders must voluntarily
submit to pastoral authority. These subjections are derived from New Testament concepts
regarding the understanding of gifts and ministries (1 Tim. 1:1-2; 4:6-16).

12 Ibid., 101.
13 In his book, Peter Wagner recognizes that this issue of apostle accountability is thorny. But one thing is
clear, apostolic leaders are not accountable to the congregation, nor to a group of elders. The only people who could
serve as regents for an apostle would be another apostle, since: “sheep do not discipline the shepherd, shepherds
discipline shepherds.” Ibid : 102-105.
14 For this study, the work carried out by In Sink Hong, A Postmodern Church? (Buenos Aires: Kairós
Editions, 2001). This work was the summary of the field study and thesis that I presented to qualify for the doctorate
at the Evangelical Higher Institute of Theological Studies (ISEDET).
15 The Evangelical Baptist Church of the Center (IEBC) of Buenos Aires was founded in 1883 by the Swiss
pastor Pablo Besson.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 10

2.2. Structure of the 90's:

Pastors Deiros and Mraida declare that the church is constantly in need of reorganization of
its ecclesiastical and operational structures to face and be effective in the face of changing
and challenging situations (that is, in the face of cultural paradigmatic changes from the
modern to the postmodern paradigm).

The next organizational structure of the church was in 1990. The assembly of a ministry
team in the church was the way in which he organized his ministry for the fulfillment of the
mission. The ministry was made up of three teams: (1) the pastoral team; (2) the ministerial
team; (3) the diaconal team.

2.2.1. The pastoral team: is the one that has the responsibility of designating the
candidates to integrate the ministerial and diaconal team. These candidates, presented by the
pastoral team, must be approved by the church assembly. Currently the pastoral team is
made up of two pastors: Pablo Deiros and Carlos Mraida. According to the church's internal
documents, pastors are considered to be men called by God to the ministry of the word.
They are responsible for presiding over worship and preaching services, and the general
development of the work of the church.

2.2.2. The ministerial team: is made up of a group of ministers of the church through
which it is organized to fulfill the mission. Ministers are responsible for specific areas.
According to the IEBC definition, ministers are those people with a clear calling from God.
It is important to note here that there is a great difference between God's call to believers
and leaders. According to Deiros' expression, God calls people to be Christians and serve
him. But God calls leaders to give and show them the vision. Later this philosophy that
“God gives vision to leaders” leads to a new conception of the power of leaders to discern
the will of God and the principle of subjection to higher authority.

2.2.3. The team of deacons: is made up of men and women called by God for a task
of pastoral service oriented towards the care of the flock. They are the immediate assistants of the
shepherds. They are especially concerned with the advancement and spiritual state of the church,
with the pastoral care of the members, with regular pastoral visitation, with the preparation and
distribution of the Lord's Supper in the respective services and with members who are unable to
attend, with the review and updating the list of members, arrangements and decisions regarding
the labor relations of church personnel, disciplinary issues in conjunction with the pastoral team,
assistance to pastors in cases of baptisms, funerals, pastoral counseling and visitation, and the
evaluation and recommendation of candidates for baptism and membership in the church.

2.2.4. Group of various officials as planning secretaries: they served as advisors on

issues of planning, organization, identification of means and resources, and medium and
long-term strategies. In addition, they participated in the meetings of the church's ministerial
team with voice but without vote.

3.1. Structural changes after the 90's:

The organizational and operational structure of 1990, which was based on three main teams,
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 11

was replaced by a more complex structure later. This change in structure is reflected in the
philosophy proposed by Deiros and Mraida:

Because the church continues in its growth process, its organizational and operational structure is
under permanent review and evaluation. To a large extent, the growth process is also explained by
the church's ability to adjust its organization and action as circumstances demand. This plasticity is
fundamental for a church that wants to grow, and ours has shown great elasticity in recent years. It is
possible that part of the explanation for the growth that the Lord did not give lies precisely in this
ability of the church to change and be receptive to new ways of organizing and operating. 16

The reasons for a reform of the previously proposed structure are: (1) a great expansion of
the number of members and the physical dimension; (2) an ideological change in Deiros.

3.1.1. The pastoral area assisted by two secretariats: these two secretariats are the
church secretariat and the planning secretariat. This pastoral team occupies the highest place
in the organization chart. Under the supervision of the pastoral team, the church is divided
into two areas: the ministerial area and the apostolic area.17

3.1.2. The ministerial area is divided into two teams, the ministerial and the
diaconal: In the opinion of Deiros and Mraida, within the organizational and operational
structure of the IEBC, the ministerial team was a very important and effective factor for the
growth of the church. . In 1990 the ministerial team was made up of eight ministries, while
now it has ten specific ministries. The diaconal team, for its part, has a much smaller and
simplified appearance compared to the ministerial team. Currently, the diaconal team is
made up of seven female and male deacons. Its main function is to visit church members,
conduct house meetings, and serve the Lord's Supper.
3.1.3. The apostolic area is divided into two, the presbyterial team and the local
churches: Deiros understands the apostolic work as a kind of bishopric, but not in direct
reference to a hierarchical structure institutionalized in the church, but as a functional
concept to build churches and , according to his word, shepherd the shepherds. On the other
hand, the IEBC congregates in different places as local congregations. That is to say, it is a
single church made up of several congregations, in different places, and that recognize the
same vision, faith, practice, mission and ministry. Each local congregation is autonomous
but interdependent with the others as a member of the IEBC. The presbyterial team is made
up of twelve meeting places: Villa Devoto, Berazategui, José León Suárez, Río Gallegos,
San Juan, Villa Borrego, Avellaneda, Caleta Olivia, Viedma and Leandro N. German
It is curious to note that even this current structure is not permanent but temporary, and
must be subjected to evaluation at each new juncture in the life of the church. There is
always a structural modification and each new structure must be evaluated in light of the
New Testament and according to its effectiveness for the fulfillment of the mission. This
permanent possibility of structural change shows its strong pragmatism in the management
of missionary work, and outlines effectiveness as a fundamental element for evaluating the

16 Internal document No. 28, “A church that grows”, section “Organizational and operational structure”
(1991): 7; cited in ibid., 54-55.
17 The apostolic expression did not appear in the 1990 organizational chart. It is a new concept that the church
acquired through the performance of the two main pastors.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 12

mission of the church. Quite apart from its structural changes, through an Internal
Document of the church it states:
The IEBC—for reasons of historical heritage—is recognized as part of the Baptist tradition and, as
such, cooperates with the Baptist World Alliance, the Evangelical Baptist Convention of the Federal
Capital and various other Baptist fraternal and cooperative entities. 18

IV. Essential elements from the biblical and practical point of view:
As you can see, there is a great variety of forms of ecclesiastical government. Perhaps this is due
to the few examples of administrative action and organizational structure in the Bible, and those
that do appear vary greatly. Undoubtedly, because of this lack of conformity, these patterns and
structures cannot be classified as normative. However, from these examples we can extract
normative principles of organization and administration. Let's look at some essential elements to
take into account in the ecclesiastical structure and organization.

1. Emphasize the functions of the rulers and their respective qualities.

1.1. The main functions of the pastor and elders are:
1.1.1. Provide pastoral care to the flock (Acts. 20:28-31; 1 P. 5:1-3)
1.1.2. Teach the Word orally and by example, encouraging, consoling, but also
preventing and correcting.
1.1.3. Equip the saints so that they do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-13;
2 Ti. 2:2).

1.2. The NT emphasizes the wise selection of local church leadership:

1.2.1. The character of the leader is the most important requirement (1 Tim. 3:2; 2
Ti. 2:1-2: Titus 1:5).
1.2.2. Three key questions for leadership selection:
What is the main objective of the body of elders?
What are the minimum requirements?
Who will guard admission to the body of Christ?

2. Recognize that plurality in leadership is the teaching of the NT.

2.1. Several elders or pastors in each local church: A group of servants of God must
arise to exercise the ministries of praying, leading, teaching, shepherding and protecting the
congregation (Acts. 14:23; 20:17, 28; 1 Ti. 3:1; 5:17; Titus 1:5, 7).

2.2. The idea of a pastoral team would also fit here: A team is a group of people who
come together in communion and harmony to fulfill a purpose. The group of apostles that
Jesus Christ named, the deacons in Acts 6 and the missionary teams in the same book, are
some valid examples.

18 Internal document, “Missionary structure of the church”: 2; cited in ibid., 60.

 Forms of government of the “
church ” 13

3. Three more principles…

3.1. Organize to fulfill God's purposes for the Church: The organizational structure in
the Bible is always presented as a means to an end, and never an end in itself. Therefore, the
first most important biblical principle of organization is always to develop structures for the
church that can help achieve the goals of the New Testament (fulfilling the Great
Commission: “make disciples,” “teach,” etc.).

3.2. Organize to meet needs: The NT Church did not just organize for the sake of
organizing. Rather, it was organized to satisfy the needs that arose (e.g.: Acts. 6).

3.3. Keep the organization simple and flexible: Organizational patterns that develop
rigidity and “category hardness” are in danger of being treated as authoritative and absolute.
This is not OK. We do not have the freedom to eternalize those things that God has left free
to change. “In a world that changes as rapidly as ours,” making absolutes of things that are
not absolute guarantees the isolation and death of the organized institutional church.” 19

On the other hand, every organization must be functional, it must be as simple as possible.
Complicated organizational patterns often become an end in themselves. A good way to test
whether or not simplicity has been lost is to examine whether the structure is serving
biblical objectives.

Sources consulted

Danna, H. AND. Manual of Ecclesiology. El Paso: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1987. (p. 109-
123)

Getz, Gene. Let's refine the perspective of the church . Miami: Editorial Caribe, 1982.

Gómez Panete, José Luís. “The Government of the Church: models of government and Scripture .
” Aletheia 14, 2/1998. (p. 29-47)

Harvey, H. The Church: its form of government and its ordinances . El Paso: Casa Bautista de
Publicaciones, 1961.

Hayes, Ed. The Church, the body of Christ today . Puebla: Las Américas Editions, 2003. (p. 153-
157)

In Sik, Hong. A Postmodern Church? In search of a model of church and mission in the
postmodern era . Buenos Aires: Kairós Editions, 2001. (46-60)

19Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century : 92.
 Forms of government of the “
church ” 14

Wagner, Peter C. Earthquake in the Church! The new apostolic reform is shaking the Church as
we know it. Nashville: Editorial Caribe-Betania, 2000. (83-157)

Yoccou, Raúl Caballero. Ecclesiology: Study of the New Testament Church . Volume I. Buenos
Aires: Mentor Editions, 1971. (p. 135-154)

Government Book of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Guatemala. Guatemala, sf