How the church selects its leadership

Leaving the matters of norma, arbitration, and hermeneutics aside, here are some tantalizing snippets (homework is to follow up on these to discover their context) on how church leaders are selected.

Milton doesn't say what model of government is created, but does comment on the method used by which leaders are selected.  One implication here is that the congregation must know what they're doing.

Popular Election of Bishops by Congregations

If those that over-affect Antiquity will follow the square thereof, their Bishops must be elected by the hands of the whole Church. The ancientest of the extant Fathers Ignatius, writing to the Philadelphians saith that it belongs to them as to the Church of God to choose a Bishop. Let no man cavil, but take the Church of God as meaning the whole consistence of Orders and Members.

Cyprian—In the 68 mark but what he says, The people chiefly hath power, either of choosing worthy ones, or refusing unworthy.

Hearken what the whole general Council of Nicea the first and famousest of all the rest determines, writing a Synodal Epistle To the African Churches, to warn them of Arrianisme, it exhorts them to choose orthodox Bishops in the place of the dead so they be worthy, and the people choose them, whereby they seem to make the peoples assent so necessary that merit without their free choice were not sufficient to make a Bishop.

We may read how S. Martin soon after Constantine was made Bishop of Turon in France by the peoples consent.

Thus went matters of the Church almost 400 years after Christ, and very probably far lower, for Nicephorus Phocas the Greek Emperor, whose reign fell near the 1000 year of our Lord, having done many things tyrannically, is said by Cedrenus to have done nothing more grievous and displeasing to the people than to have inacted that no Bishop should be chosen without his will; so long did this right remain to the people in the midst of other palpable corruptions.

- Milton, Of Reformation

But later comes this big statement which leaves me wondering: 

Seeing that the Churchman's office is only to teach men the Christian Faith, to exhort all, to encourage the good, to admonish the bad, privately the less offender, publicly the scandalous and stubborn; to censure, and separate from the communion of Christ's flock the contagious, and incorrigible, to receive with joy and fatherly compassion the penitent; all this must be done, and more than this is beyond any Church authority.

Fine and well, but how does one arbitrate between disputes within a congregation, or just as important, between disputing congregations?  Suppose a Lutheran church and a Baptist church were to come into "full communion" with each other, allowing distinctiveness due to the law of liberty and "nihil obstat".  But then the issues of baptism and communion come up as an obstacle.  Both agree in Sola Scriptura -- the Bible is the norm, encapsulating the critical Regula Fide.  But who will arbitrate between the two?  More to the point: can they arbitrate fairly?  Does Christian love extend this far?

And how does church discipline get enforced between congregations?  If a church puts a member under church discipline, should there be a formal method for declaring this to other churches?

I'm not saying I disagree.  I'm just saying that there seems to be a bit more to it than that.  I'm not saying that Christendom necessarily needs a Monarch, or Council, or Convention.  

Let's say that I think the norm, the essential Regula Fide, has been figured out, in Sola Scriptura.  Let's say that I think hermeneutics is reasonably well-established, too.
 
But now, it seems the Church needs something, or somethings, that can arbitrate.  In general I am biased toward the Convention model, or a kind of intermittent Council model, but I need to think more about this.


John Wesley and Church Structure

John Wesley recognized the need for an organized system of communication and accountability and developed what he called the “connexion,” which was an interlocking system of classes, societies, and annual conferences.

The reason for this was, essentially, to efficiently spread the Gospel and handle church discipline.

No local church is the total body of Christ. Therefore, local United Methodist churches are bound together by a common mission and common governance that accomplish reaching out into the world.

Connectionalism shows through the clergy appointment system, through the developing of mission and ministry that United Methodists do together, and through giving.

Now, it seems to me that clergy appointment is not really needed to achieve efficient communication and to coordinate evangelization (and church planting).  The Cooperative Program of a Convention seems to me to be more friendly to congregational appointment of leaders -- quite possibly the Biblical model.