`  ===JW refs=== Scholars will likely agree that in Russell's day and for many decades, congregations of Bible Students were unmistakeably congregational. It was not unheard of for a congregation to simply ignore a teaching which a majority of congregants didn't like. For example, as early as 1942 smoking was said to disqualify a man from appointment as overseer or servant, yet reportedly that behavior was widely tolerated for at least another decade. The question is whether the changes since then have moved JWs out from under their historic classification. I'm insufficiently familiar with the various forms of polity to know which features are inextricably linked with each. Additionally, does each form imply legal and ownership principles which may or may not have repercussions? My thoughts on each: * Presbyterian polity - No, the layers of elected committeemen are dissimilar to JWs. * Episcopal polity - I'd thought (likely incorrectly) that episcopalism implied central ownership of places of worship, and that each bishop is a successor to the apostles. JWs don't do or believe that. IMHO, JWs have pointedly structured themselves so that they have (arguably) only two levels: GBJW and local. Multiple references show that EVERY branch committeeman and EVERY traveling overseer is a direct appointee and direct representative of the GBJW; each acts under specific assignment rather than on his own ordinal authority (which, to my understanding, is different from the authority of a bishop or other episcopal layer). Furthermore, the section Ecclesiastical polity#Episcopal Polity says, ``episcopal polity is not usually a simple chain of command``; yet that seems to be the PRIMARY basis for applying the term to JWs. * Congregational polity - Of the three, I'd have guessed that JWs would be listed with a Congregational polity, since they dispense with titled positions, and the local body of elders in each congregation is actually recognized to have remarkably broad authority over local (that is, non-doctrinal) matters. While a branch office or traveling overseer may push a particular issue on the mere basis of ``organizational unity``, the fact remains that local elders do have wide latitude, and are expected to present many practical matters to a congregation vote. In practice, a JW branch office mainly influences a local congregation's non-doctrinal affairs by appointing and/or deleting particular elders; the obvious parallel is that other congregationalists also look outside the local congregation for ministerial ordination (and they typically respect authoritative de-ordination).Primarily, JWs differ from traditional congregational polity only in that unappointed congregants cannot recommend the appointment or deletion of their elders and deacons. Technically (that is, legally) a majority of local congregants probably COULD do what it wanted with its house of worship and appointments (admittedly, with those involved then considered as ``disassociated``). I think that scenario is altogether impossible in an episcopal organization. Incidentally, JW literature seems to pointedly refused to allow the religion to be categorized in any of the three polities. Consider: * The Watchtower, April 15, 1996, page 20, ``Christian unity is the eighth requirement of true worship. ...Many divisions have sprung from differences of doctrine or church government (for example, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational). [By implication, none of those three is ``true worship``.]`` * Awake!, May 8, 1995, page 20, ``Should the true religion be identified...by the form of rule it employs (such as Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregational)? [``No,`` is the implication; ``true religion`` is none of those three.]`` Without a better suggestion, I'd recommend ``Congregational polity ('centralized' or 'modified')`` or similar.   `