Who should govern churches?

Approve it.

excellent

issue revision:

How about: 

Who should govern churches?

Policy is a tad weak.

I don't like the passivity there.  If we don't like Jacki's suggestion, then maybe we should go toward:

   Who should decide church policy?

How about "Through whom should church leadership flow?"

I think I prefer the formality of Jacki's suggestion.  It requires changing "By" to "Through" or some other revision.

"Who should lead churches?"

I prefer:

How should church leadership operate?
 
to

How should churches be run?

OK, at the time I was in an odd mood and I was feeling that it made little sense for one denomination to argue that another denomination should be run one way or another.  In a denomination where things are pretty much established, this question doesn't appear relevant.  Now, however, I think it would work.  One hopes that everybody belongs to their denomination because they think it is set up the best way, and they can certainly take a stand on that.  I retract the objection.

I think this may be a little too narrow.  It is an issue restricted to churches that aren't subject to church wide authority.  Catholics and the LDS church are run from a centralized church government.  Local Bishops are subject to their superiors who are subject to their superiors on up the line to Pope or Prophet. 

I understand your concern. Option 2, I believe addresses the design of both LDS, Catholic, and most mainline protestant denominations:

By pastors under the authority of denominational leadership

I think this may be a little too narrow.  It is an issue restricted to churches that aren't subject to church wide authority.  Catholics and the LDS church are run from a centralized church government.  Local Bishops are subject to their superiors who are subject to their superiors on up the line to Pope or Prophet.  I think the Evangelical church has a similar system (at least it is supposed to, or used to) I don't know about other sects like Lutherens, Methodists, or Presbyterians, but there are quite a few "Christians" to which this issue would not apply.

That might not be a problem, I don't know.  I could not really have a position on this issue, and Oatney might not either because we both belong to churches with centeralized authority which establish the rules for how local churches opperate.

need whicker's sign off ...

Pastor is a term equally applicable to parish priest as it is to a protestant minister, so this should be ready to roll. I do need to apologize. I click the button to show the previous wording in the comments and for some reason it didn't post. I'm not certain why.

remember for catholics, bishops run the churches.  this issue should apply to all christians.

I like Jacki's suggestion.

How should churches be run? 

[list the stands on all sides of the debate] be descriptive and use neutral language.

Maybe this could be approached from the other side,

Should churches be run democratically?

The pastor is unanswerable to any authority (except perhaps a denominational superior.) He runs the church. If there's a board, its under his authority. He makes all organizational decisions on the church, runs the worship, invite preachers, and can make most of the important decisions about the church's future.

the idea is not so much - is the issue broad enough for sub-issues but whether people will blog on the issue over the long term.

now, on to this issue specifically, i'd like a little more direction.  what do we mean by "absolute power"  can this issue be more descriptive?

Here's a revision, and a little less narrow. This one will open the door to sub-issues.

I agree with jacki.  This is too narrow.

i think this issue is too specific to sustain a rational debate.  for one, the stands are so descriptive that they do the blogging for you.  we need pointed, straightforward issues that wil invite complex and rational blog posts.