This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article on Ecclesiastical Polity is riddled with incorrect information and missing many other bits of information. For instance, the names of the current list is not correct. It is not correctly titled Episcopal policy, for which Episcopal polity are we talking about? There is Prelatic Episcopacy and more correctly titled Presbyterial Episcopacy. Congregationalism is not even correct defined and should not even be the title of a major polity. Independency would be the more correct title to the third polity. But there is a huge difference between Independent Congregationalism and Independent Eldership which are governed differently from each other. Independent Congregationalism is invested in the Congregation and remains Independent while Independent Eldership's government is invested in the eldership while the church remains Independent. Then you are completely missing another polity which is called Erastianism which is that church government is supremely invested in a civil monarch of a nation. So this article should be changed. Any discussion? Coramdeo30 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Coramdeo30
I made one edit to this page referencing the Church of God in Christ and Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship (historically Pentecostal and African American church bodies)regarding what is commonly known about their hierarchical structure and a source was demanded where there were none for similar assertions regarding other traditions.
How about some consistency from the theologians and scholars of Christian history please. (DJ Black Adam (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
Many American churches, and some of the largest, are independent (thus neither episcopal nor presbyterian in their polity) and have final authority vested in the pastor rather than in the congregation or the elders (thus not congregational polity). One example that has made an attempt to formalize this as an ecclesiology (calling it the "Moses model") is Calvary Chapel. Is there any scholarship on this idea? Is there a good name for it? Does anyone know how common it is among independent churches? It could be called "entrepreneurial" in that the church lives or dies based on whether it is able to attract people who will follow the pastor's vision, but I have no WP:RS to support that usage. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Plurality (church governance) has been a stub for some time now, and would fit well as a section of this page. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. Some discussion has already occurred on the source page's talk page. --JFHutson (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.