As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church. I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?

In the news reports swirling around the 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, something struck me as odd – there were "lay delegates" among the 800 delegates able to vote on the future direction of the denomination. For example, NPR reported: > Also speaking against the plan was Nancy Denardo, a lay delegate of western Pennsylvania ([source](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/698188343/united-methodist-church-votes-to-keep-bans-on-same-sex-weddings-lgbtq-clergy)) Methodism was born out of the Church of England, which has an "episcopal" system of government – churches are led by priests and overseen by bishops. It's a more hierarchical structure than Presbyterianism, for example, where churches are led by a group of elders and each church is overseen by all the elders in a particular region. But at least in my Presbyterian denomination, there is no concept of "lay delegates" at the general assembly – the only people who can vote are those who have been ordained as an elder/pastor. Thus it seems odd to me that the Methodists – more hierarchical than Presbyterians – would allow the laity to vote in their general assemblies. From my cursory research on Wikipedia, it sounds like the system today is not the way it was from the beginning – apparently the laity were denied voting rights at the 1792 General Conference, and a faction split from the church when laity were not given voting powers in the 1820s ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methodist_Episcopal_Church&oldid=846221567#Growth,_the_first_General_Conference,_and_the_O 'Kelly_Schism_(1785%E2%80%931792))). Thus my question is – **when did the UMC, or its predecessor denominations, first allow laity to vote in its general conferences?** By predecessor denominations, I mean the [Methodist Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Church_(USA)) (1939–1968), the [Methodist Episcopal Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Episcopal_Church) (1784–1939), and the [Methodist Episcopal Church, South](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Episcopal_Church,_South) (1844–1939).

The Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Churches argue that the *episcopal* church polity is the only valid one, citing first and second Timothy and early church fathers like *Ignatius of Antioch*. What are some biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

[Richard Hooker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker) 's *Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity* (1593) is a foundational document for the theology and ecclesiology of the Church of England. In it, he defends (among other things) the Anglican understanding of the episcopacy, and the power of the church to set its own form of government, within certain doctrinal limits. Since Hooker, the polity of the Church of England has changed in some important ways. Following the motto of "episcopally led, synodically governed", there are more synods than there used to be, and they include lay people as well as clergy. For example, the General Synod (since 1969; the Church Assembly from 1919 until then) is a legislative body including separate houses of bishops, clergy and laity. There is a national executive body called the Archbishops' Council (since 1999). Comparable structures exist at the diocesan level. How does the current model of Church of England polity compare with the understanding of Hooker? In particular, what would he think about governance by regular synods with lay participation?

This may be highly politically charged right now, however can anyone please explain what previously intercommuning churches will be directly impacted by the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church (other than the obvious schism between Constantiople and Russia)? Moscow breaks communion with Constantinople Will other churches lose communion with Russia? With Constantinople? Are there other effects that we can expect to see?

Note: This question is admittedly a bit technical, but I hope it serves to clarify differences in polity between two distinct but related Reformed traditions in the US. ---- In the brand of presbyterianism that I am most familiar with, the [PCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_America) , prospective pastors (teaching elders) must affirm the Westminster Standards. They are expected to express any "exceptions" they may have – that is, if they have views that are at odds with the Standards, they must communicate them. These exceptions are evaluated by the presbytery *before* the prospective pastor is ordained, and the presbytery ordains the man only if his exceptions are deemed not to "strike at the vitals" of the system of belief. Now, I'm wondering if there is a comparable procedure in the "modified presbyterianism" of the [Christian Reformed Church in North America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reformed_Church_in_North_America) . Of course, one difference would be that the standards being affirmed there would be the Three Forms of Unity. But perhaps more significant is the body that evaluates candidate's theology – according to Wikipedia, it is the *congregation*, not a higher court, that ordains: > ministers are ordained and credentialed by a local congregation, not the regional classis or presbytery. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Reformed_Church_in_North_America&oldid=729510663#Governance)) My questions, then, are: - What is the role of individual congregations of the CRCNA in evaluating a prospective pastor's adherence to the Three Forms of Unity? - Do they lead the effort, work together with/below a higher court, or have no role? - Does any higher court in the denomination have the authority to prevent a candidate from being ordained by a congregation if it deems the candidate's views to be heretical?

In the church government and polity documents (as well as the myriad of meta discussion on the internet) for various Protestant traditions it is common to find either the term "Elder led" or "Elder ruled". What is the difference between these two terms?