Presbyterianism, Brainchild of the Vikings?

I'm just throwing this out there to chew on, but it strikes me that there are some notable similarities between the form of government used by the Vikings and that used by the Scotland sprung, Calvin influenced, Presbyterians.

Hurstwic, a site dedicated to educating "the general public on the history and culture of the Viking Age" describes the Icelandic government (The Norse form of government that we know the most about because there are more written descriptions from Iceland than other lands of the North men.) as follows:

Throughout the Norse world, open-air governmental assemblies called þing (things) met regularly, usually once a year in most of the Norse lands. Local þing, regional þing, and (in the case of Iceland) a national þing existed, called the Alþing. These meetings were open to virtually all free men. At these sessions, complaints were heard, decisions were rendered, and laws were passed.

Some sources describe the government in even more detail, explaining that:

The ting was the assembly of the free people of a country, province or a hundred (hundare/härad/herred). There were consequently hierarchies of tings, so that the local tings were represented at the higher-level ting, for a province or land. At the ting, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. -- Glen Erikson

Essentially the Vikings used a form of government that included local governing bodies which were in turn mediated by regional governing bodies and at the largest extent by a national governing body, or parliament, called the Althing.

The Presbyterian form of government was instituted by John Knox of Scotland (a country overrun by Vikings during the Middle Ages) and heavily influenced by John Calvin of Geneva (who was born in Noyon, which is located in northwest France close to Normandy where the Vikings (also called Normans or Northmen) settled). Within the Presbyterian church, local churches are governed by elected elders who meet regularly as a session (sometimes called the Consistory). Representatives of the session gather throughout the year in a larger, regional group called the Presbytery (sometimes called the Synod). Members of each Presbytery gather once a year in a national assembly called General Assembly.

	Vikings	Presbyterians
local	local Thing (attended by any free man who wished to attend)	Session/Consistory (attended by elders who were elected (or hired if you're talking about the teaching elder) by the congregation)
regional	regional Thing (attended by members of the local Things)	Presbytery/Synod (attended by members of the sessions/consistories)
national	Althing (attended by members of the regional Things)	General Assembly (attended by members of the Presbyteries/Synods)

I have heard it said that the American form of government is directly descended from that of the Presbyterians (such as in this article entitled, A Presbyterian Nation, Thank You). However, I agree with Steve Salyards who believes the two systems developed around the same time and within the same climate and were similar for that reason, not because one was built upon the other. But these parliamentary ideas, which rumbled throughout Europe and overthrew, or radically changed the nature of, many a monarchy, were a chief tenant of the Norse system of government, one that they brought with them as they invaded those very parts of Europe that later felt the rumblings of self-government rise up from within them.

I have often been told that the Presbyterian form of government springs directly from the Bible. Providence OPC (of Chilhowie, Virginia. How's that for a cool name for a town?) sums up this belief rather neatly when it states on its website, "The word 'presbyterian' comes from the New Testament Greek word for 'elder." First and foremost, then presbyterianism is a form of church government based upon the Bible's teaching that since the close of the Apostolic age, Christ has ordained that His church be led and ruled by duly ordained officers known as Elders." This argument, drawing a link between Presbyterian rule and Scripture is about as sound as the argument that an Episcopalian might make that the word "episcopos" comes from the New Testament Greek word for "bishop" and therefore episcopalianism is the  form of church government based upon the Bible's teaching.

Please don't read into what I'm saying. I think the Presbyterian form of government is fine as far as institutional church governments go. It's certainly not one that focuses on nurturing and exhorting fellow churches/presbyteries. From what I've heard, meetings of the Presbyteries and General Assembly tend to focus on legal issues (generally regarding the Book of Church Order, which comprises the rules or laws of the institution). But then again, the purpose of the Norse Things tended to be legal in nature as well (although they had a Lawspeaker who had memorized the law and recited it rather than a written book to refer to).

I suppose this whole train of thought leads to other questions. Does church government mean the same thing as church leadership? Or does church government only involve the legal, while church leadership is more pastoral (which would include nurturing and exhorting as opposed to only being concerned with the legality of the church). Should the government of church look different than the government of a nation  (in form? in function?)? If so, how so? And perhaps the most important question of all, if the Presbyterian form of government did indeed spring from that of the Norse, should our congregation chip in to outfit our pastor with broadsword and wooden shield before he attends Presbytery next season?

Denominations and Accountability

When we attended the Church of the Sojourners in San Francisco, the church that John Alexander pastored at the time, one of Rob's largest complaints was that they had no oversight or accountability from anyone besides themselves. They were a house church that wasn't, at the time, affiliated with any other house churches, nor any denomination. They did have ties to other house churches, most notably Church of the Servant King, but there was no formal accountability structure. 

This, and several other issues that Rob was dealing with, eventually led us to join City Church instead, which was just starting up in a little chapel in the Presidio. But the questions that Rob put to John Alexander seem to have gotten John thinking about the idea of accountability between churches. He even mentions, in his Stop Going to Church and Be the Church book that I've referenced several times in recent posts, the decision making process that he and the other church leaders went through as they considered the issue and tried to determine what might work best for their congregation. 

They eventually developed a consortium of churches in which members of one congregation would (on a yearly basis, I think it was) travel to one of the other house churches and live among the members for a week. They would meet with each of the leaders one-on-one as well as in a group and they spent time (also one-on-one and in larger groups) with the rest of the members of the congregation as well, asking questions about their own spiritual growth, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the church congregation and so on. In the end, after having spent a fair amount of time immersed in the matters of the church (both spiritual and worldly) they would give an evaluation of how the church was doing, areas where they could improve, where their strengths lie, etc. And when they gave their report, it wasn't in a business fashion in which ultimatums were handed down or numbers had been crunched. Instead it was a thoughtfully prepared evaluation written by a group of people who had built relationships with those they were evaluating. I'm sure it's not a perfect system, but what I love about it is that the people get to know each other. They talk over a period of time and everyone gets a say. And the conclusions are hopefully drawn up in love for the betterment of the congregation. 

Compare that to the system that we found at City Church, a member of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). There the pastor attended Presbytery meetings 3 or 4 times a year where he'd meet only with other pastors or elders from the other PCA churches in the region. They often have specific issues to discuss and make rulings on. Then they'd travel back home having never met with other members of any other congregations and therefore only hearing the news from other churches through the lens of the other leaders (if they spent any time talking about their congregations at all). Though City Church was a member of a denomination with a body of leadership that was ostensibly in charge of holding each church accountable to the directives in the Bible, that leadership generally only dealt with issues once they'd grown so large that they had to be dealt with. There was no system whereby help was brought in before an issue grew too large. And when decisions were dealt out, they were from a stand point of leaders ruling over either other leaders or other church members. They were not done in a context of relationship and the problems were rarely, if ever, dealt with when they were still small and manageable. If it wasn't explosive, it wasn't worth dealing with yet. 

The difference between the Sojourners model and the City Church model speaks volumes to me. I've been in many Bible Studies or Sunday School classes in which we've discussed the verses in Scripture that speak about holding each other accountable and almost always someone jumps in and quotes from Ephesians that you have to "speak the truth in love" and that means you have to know the person and have some sort of relationship with them before you can expect to be allowed into their life enough to also help them deal with their issues and struggles. (We only give paid counselors the right to tell us what to do without them first becoming our friends.) 

But when you talk about accountability on a congregational level, that relational stuff often seems to fly right out the window. Within our denomination, the leaders of the other congregations can step in and make judgement calls without having had built any sort of relationship with the members of the congregation before hand. In fact, in our current presbytery, getting together across congregations outside of official presbytery meetings seems to almost be taboo. At least, every attempt I've seen made to get this to happen is akin to pulling teeth and still getting minimal or no results. 

In the end I'm left wondering what the positives are after all to being in a church that's a member of a larger denomination. Sure, they'll whip us in to shape if we get out of line. But they're more than likely do it with harshness and lack of love because they don't have a clue who we are and why we've come to the place we're in. So if there's value in having a stick over our heads, then sure, there's value to being in the denomination. But if we're looking for outsiders who will come in and get to know us, and let us in to get to know them, and who will assent to holding us accountable to our goals and we to them, then we're certainly not going to find it in the PCA. From the presbyteries I've been in, this not only isn't a priority. It's not even on the radar. 

I wonder how many denominations have split into even more denominations because, rather than building relationships so as to have a context in which to discuss their differences, they have formed sides, fought battles, and eventually resorted to a denominational split rather than come to an agreement on whatever issue they're struggling with. What a shame! Jesus said that the world would know we are his disciples because we love one another and instead we lord it over one another, not only at a personal level but at a congregational level. 

Shame on us. 

The Role of a Church Leader

I'm about 2/3rds of the way through Introverts in the Church and just finished the section on leadership. Here's a tidbit from my reading this morning:

The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. -- Ephesians 4:11-13

These three verses are packed with insight about leadership.  We see that God creates different sorts of leaders and that they, therefore, lead out of who they are and the gifts they have been given.  We also learn that the main responsibility of leaders, with their manifold gifts and functions, is to equip others for ministry and pave the way for their maturity.  In order for pastors to be faithful to their biblical calling, and survive in ministry, they must empower and release others to do the ministry of the church. 

I like the "equip others for ministry" description.  Though I do know many pastors who have this as their goal, I've also met too many who seem more set on keeping a tight thumb on what they see as their domain.