IN DEFENCE OF DE-CENTRALIZED & LOCAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT

 

IN DEFENCE OF DE-CENTRALIZED & LOCAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT:

Michael Foster rightly points out below that if you've been in the PCA, you've recognized all these tactics (highlighted in the image at the bottom of this post) by the progressives before. Not just the progressive really, most everyone. Conservatives do it because they often confuse "bureaucratic bloat" with "do everything decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:40) I suppose. Progressives do it for all the reasons Foster highlights below -- basically to foist their agenda on everyone even when it doesn't have majority support.

Until I came into the small Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church denomination, I'd never been to a presbytery meeting I liked. All that is in the image below was on display, and it also had the effect of making things seem very artificial. At one presbytery meeting of another small denomination I was considering years back, the whole denomination dissolved because they couldn't resolve a dispute!

But it isn't good to only grumble and complain about these things, especially if you are going to continue to embrace and defend Presbyterian Church government. I especially think of Reformed Baptists and other "independents" that I have a lot in common with, who see these posts and are further alienated from Presbyterianism (I'm thinking especially of Rett Copple here and some of his posts).

So I am going to list some points that I think would improve our Presbyterian Church government, either because it is a return to true Presbyterian ecclesiology or it's just a wise way to proceed given the current conditions in our nation, among our people, etc. These points would form a more decentralized and local Presbyterianism that I believe both aligns with Scripture and meets the challenges of today:

1.       Pastors/Ministers/Teaching Elders should be members of the local church they are pastoring, and NOT a member of Presbytery (a collection of pastors/teaching elders in a given region, who usually meet 3-6 times a year to worship and conduct business for the churches in their presbytery).

a.       I confess I have not read many arguments in favor of this practice, but I have a hard time finding biblical warrant and/or light of nature reasons for doing so. It really hit me years back when I saw a minister's wife and children take membership vows, but he did not, though he was sitting right there!

b.      I have also seen in several churches that this can have the effect of an "us vs. them" mentality. When you are literally saying that the pastor is not part of the membership/body of this church, this seems inevitable to me. The membership begins to say the pastor is just a "hired hand" or "employee of presbytery" (I've heard as much before), and the pastor can begin to think his real status/class belongs with the distinguished "fathers and brothers," his fellow ministers at the presbytery level.

c.       In short, I've seen this produce the effect that the pastor/minister/teaching elder "hovers above" the congregation, and that naturally produces a hierarchical feel to church government, something grassroots Presbyterians explicitly wish to avoid.

d.      This is further complicated to me when you have Ruling Elders who ARE members of their local congregation, yet serve on session and also vote/are part of presbytery. I've also seen this divide the eldership, ruling elders vs. teaching elders.

e.       Add on top of that the fact that the PCA has a "two-office view" of church government, and not a "three office view" like the OPC, and it makes even less sense to me.

 

2.       Emphasize that regional Presbyteries (those beyond the eldership of a local church) do not exist except when elders from multiple churches are meeting together to form/bring into being the regional presbytery.

a.       This captures something that I was told when I first was interested in the CRPC.

b.      When I look at Acts 15, I see a serious dispute over salvation itself arising, and this necessitated the apostles and elders of the churches gathering together to resolve the serious dispute.

c.       They do so, and then issue a letter to the churches with certain clarifications and commands, but also encouragements.

d.      It seems that the heated, pointed issue brought the council/presbytery of church officers into being. We do not read that they agreed to meet every couple of months, or every year, or to form a study committee on whether or not circumcision is necessary for Gentiles to really be saved! Once they left, the meeting was over, the presbytery was dissolved, and would not form again unless/until need arose.

e.       Further, they had a local concern and actually sent delegates to the local churches with the letter to Antioch. So the churches are bound/covenanted together, they are not independent. So regional presbyteries should exist, but only when they are actually resolving matters/doing necessary business.

f.        At all other times, the local churches/local presbytery of each church's eldership are the broadest/highest level of church government. This seems of the essence of grassroots, bottom up, local emphasized Presbyterianism.

 

3.       No Standing Committees of Regional Presbyteries or General Assembly/Synod.

a.       I think I have the terminology correct here, perhaps not, but there are various committees that exist in perpetuity, always doing work at the "regional presbytery" level.

b.      Yes, this can be voted on by the elders at regional presbytery or General Assembly (when all the presbyteries from all over the nation/world of a given Presbyterian denomination come together, usually once a year), but politics in the bad sense of the word are played here all the time, these permanent committees get stacked fairly easily by the ambitious/nefarious, and voila, you have the church deep state.

c.       I am sure some will protest and say a denomination as large as the PCA has to have certain committees always conducting work, etc., but I disagree. Keep it local, resolve your issues, and regional presbytery and general assemblies should serve as "courts of last resort", not "courts of first, always, and only," funded by your tithe dollars.

d.      Again, if Regional Presbyteries/General Assemblies are not to exist except when the elders of the churches meet together to bring them into being, you can't even have permanent/standing committees of those courts, because they literally do not exist.

 

4.       Every Mission/Work/Church Plant should be a ministry of the local church, not a mission/work/church plant of the regional presbytery or general assembly.

a.       This plainly supports decentralization and localism, and again, if regional presbyteries don't exist except when in session/meeting, there's no mechanism to even have a ministry or church plant belonging to the regional presbytery.

b.      This doesn't mean that churches in the same denomination cannot support or fund one another's missions, works, church plants, etc. Of course they can, and should (I Cor. 16:1-4).

 

5.       Retain the Teaching Elders/Pastors ordination/preaching credentials at the Regional Presbytery level, while matters of moral failing, character, personal/family issues at the local church level/local eldership.

a.       To my understanding, this is another feature of the CRPC, and I imagine some other denominations as well. But I know in the PCA, when one pastor had a moral failing, one of the committees from presbytery seemed to quickly swoop in and swoop the pastor away.

b.      I certainly don't think congregations need know every detail of what happened to this or that pastor when they failed morally, but logically the eldership of the local church, where this pastor served, ministered, & was part of the eldership, ought generally to be able to resolve these moral issues; they are closest to the concerns, & if there are disputes, appeals to presbytery/the broader assembly of elders of the other churches can/should be made.

c.       But the ordination/preaching credentials of a teaching elder/minister/pastor should be held at the regional presbytery level because fellow teaching and ruling elders are most equipped to examine a candidate for ordination, and the gravity and seriousness of ordaining a man to pastoral office demands that more than just the local church's elders (who may all be ruling elders) examine the candidate.

d.      This maintains the position that each pastor/teaching elder should be a member of the local church he is pastoring (and thus his character/morality falls under that purview first), but also that the pastor has been called to a solemn office, and thus his preaching credentials should be held at the regional presbytery level, and candidates for ministry must be examined by the regional presbytery, not just the elders of the local church they are seeking to pastor.

Well, I am sure I could add more if I thought about it, I am sure that some of this could be tweaked, and I don't doubt I could be wrong on some details. I'm very much open/interested in discussion on this, but I did want to give a defense of decentralized and local Presbyterianism, submit it as the way forward to avoid bureaucratic bloat and top-down sabotage by progressives, and encourage Baptists and other independents to see that there are good (ahem, better and more biblical and therefore beneficial) alternatives to their form of church government.

 

Michael Foster commenting on the above image: “This is sections 11,12 of the OSS's Simple Sabotage Field Manual, a 1944 document that has been declassified.

It gives simple steps to keep organizations from being effective. All current or former PCA pastors and elders will recognize these. If you want to get something done as a church, keep an eye out for these tactics.

The OSS became the CIA after WWII. The full document is here:”

http://svn.cacert.org/.../CAc.../Board/oss/oss_sabotage.html