Divesting an Elder and the OPC

[Glenn Ferrell]

Andrew: You are setting a Regulative Principle standard for this provision in the FG, when it would seem more a matter of "circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

There are indeed times when it becomes apparent that an individual does not possess the gifts necessary for his office- maturity, discernment, temperament, leadership, graciousness, his ability to relate to others, etc. Though it is not an easy matter to resolve, this provision in the FG is helpful; and though not without the possibility of error, provides certain protections.

The potential problem here is that in any session or congregational meeting where the edifying giftedness of the individual in question, or lack thereof, is being discussed, there may be a tendency to introduce anecdotal examples that might tend more toward accusations of sin, without the provisions for the officer's defense, and the likelihood of his being slandered. Such a meeting requires careful moderation to insure that the discussion does not degenerate to such.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Glenn:

I appreciate all of your comments. I have written elsewhere about the observations of your first paragraph and am very much in agreement.

As to the second and third paragraphs I am in complete agreement as well. This whole thread is a bit ironic because I've always been one who has urged great caution with respect to this section and have opposed its use at what I deemed to be inappropriate junctures.

In fact, having been called in by various sessions to counsel with them and also to moderate congregational meetings wrt this sort of thing (including asking pastors to resign), I've always made it very clear that anything resembling a charge will bring down the gavel and be ruled out of order, particularly as a congregation is not a judicatory and never has competency to try charges. So I am completely sympathetic to those who want to make sure that due process is never denied and am committed to not allowing FG 26 to be employed in cases when sin is being charged. Contrariwise, I don't like the idea of charging a man with sin to remove him from office when his "sin" is that he doesn't possess the requisite gifts or otherwise edify the congregation.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Held Fast]

Andrew, do you feel you have received an answer to these two questions from your OP:

2) What is the typical "biblical" argument for this process?

3) Is this even correct biblically?​

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew, do you feel you have received an answer to these two questions from your OP:

2) What is the typical "biblical" argument for this process?

3) Is this even correct biblically?​

No, I do not feel I have. That doesn't mean these men haven't attempted to convince me (which they have been very gracious and patient, thank you).

I have been busy. I am sorry for the delayed response. I have also been thinking through what these men have been saying. I want to give a more thourough response. I thank you for your patience.

Here are some preliminary thoughts:

1) With regards to Rev. Buchanan's scenarios: I believe (even though they are hypothetical) that they are poor scenarios. I will (Lord willing) give an answer later tonight on his post.

2) I believe that the biblical model (as Rev. Strange has asked me to give) is found in both the Old and New Testament. Particularly with the idea that ruling elders have their basis in the old from the "chief of the fathers of Israel as were joined in the government of that church". And the New where we see them as those who are responsible for the souls of their flock (Heb. 13). The process of judicial or formal trial for ruling elders to be divested, I believe, is founded in the idea of what Gillespie calls their "power of jurisdiction". Gillespie also makes the argument that to not edify the congregation is a "sin upon his soul" because of his "calling and covenant". Later tonight I'll go more into detail. However it can be found in his Assertion of the Governemnt of the Church of Scotland.

3) Thank you for your response Rev. Ferrel. I have (just like Revs Strange and Buchanan) appreciated your thoughtful advice and input. However I must disagree with your assessment about this provision. This provision, although administrative, is a form of discipline. However, as I've stated before, I find no biblical warrant for this provision. Discipline is under the regulative principle (WLC 108). This would not be a case that is "common to human laws".


I will give a more full response later tonight to each of these men's posts, Lord Willing.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Could you give us your case for that? How is it that the church is mandated by God's Word to follow what you believe is correct in every case?

Thank you for your patience. I am sorry I was unable to respond last night.

It was asked of me to give an answer for why I believe that a trial should be used in every case. My answer might seem simple, but here it is: because I find no warrant for administrative divestment. Dr. Strange kept using the term "governmental", but I have not found this usage in any works. I could have over looked or missed something, but I've never seen the term used in this context and in this way. However, there is a process by which I do find to have warrant.

We should clearly know that discipline is instituted by Christ himself (Matt. 16:18; 18:15-18; John 20:21-23). We understand that they have been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power of binding and loosing. We also see this through apostolic practice (1 Cor. 4:18-21; 5:1-13). We see that these things are done for various sin, heresies, etc. What I do not see are things done "administratively". That seems to be the biggest issue for me. There doesn't seem to be any establishment of an "administrative" process.

It has been mentioned by Rev. Ferrel that I'm setting a regulative principle standard for something he believes is a circumstance. However, it should be mentioned here that this process is a form of discipline. Discipline, both biblically and confessionally, is a matter that falls under the regulative principle. Westminster Larger Catechism is the most explicit wording on this issue:

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Also I mentioned Gillespie on this issue as well. I have to agree with Gillespie on calling these issues as matters of sin. If an elder is not edifying to his congregation, he has sinned because of his calling and covenant.

The specific reason for administratively divesting an officer is do to the lack of edification. Edification is "the instruction or improvement of a person morally or intellectually." However, Gillespie (as one) seems to argue that NOT doing those things is sin on the elders part, which is grounds for a charge. Gillespie writes: " To conclude, then, the calling of ruling elders consisteth in these two things: (1.) To assist and voice in all assemblies of the church: which is their power of jurisdiction; (2.) To watch diligently over the whole flock all these ways which have been mentioned, and to do by authority that which other Christians ought to do in charity: which is their power of order. And the elder which neglecteth any one of these two whereunto his calling leadeth him, shall make answer to God for it; for the word of God, the discipline of this kirk, the bonds of his own calling and covenant, do all bind sin upon his soul, if either he give not diligence in private, by admonishing all men of their duty as the case requireth; or if he neglect to keep either the ecclesiastical court and consistory within the congregation where his charge is, or the classical presbytery and other assemblies of the church, which he is no less bound to keep than his pastor, when he is called and designed thereunto." (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, Chapter 2)

Directly above this quote is what he says are the duties: "For example, every Christian is bound in charity to admonish and reprove his brother that offendeth, first privately, then before witnesses; and if he hear not, to tell it to the church, Lev. 19.17; Matt. 18.15-17. This a ruling elder ought to do by virtue of his calling, and with authority, 1 Thes. 5.12; private Christians ought in charity to instruct the ignorant, John 4.29; Acts 18.26; to exhort the negligent, Heb. 3.15; 10.24,25; to comfort the afflicted, 1 Thes. 5.11; to support the weak, 1 Thes. 5.14; to restore him that falleth, Gal. 6.1; to visit the sick; Matt. 25.36,40; to reconcile those who are at variance, Matt. 5.9; to contend for the truth, and to answer for it, Jude, verse 3; 1 Pet. 3.15, all which are incumbent to the ruling elder, by the authority of his calling." (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, Chapter 2)

1) On the mission field, a man is chosen to be an elder (a genuine Christian), and he serves faithfully and well for three years. It is then discovered he has a second wife; now, he is not permitted scripturally to be an elder. He did not hide the fact he had another wife; it is just the case that the subject was overlooked when his faith and other qualities were evaluated. It was assumed he was monogamous. There is no Bible in these folks' language. The oversight may be reasonably blamed on the missionary.

I know these are hypothetical, but I find it hard that one who is looking to ordain men, did not go over the "basics" of being an elder. First Timothy 3 explicitly states that an elder is to be "the husband of one wife". This isn't only a very basic requirement for an elder, but also a Christian. Likewise, men who just came to the faith are not to be ordained. So, I'm not sure how this scenario would even be acceptable.

2) The church rashly chose a youth in his teens to be an elder. Afterward, his undisguisable immaturity was exposed. The church unilaterally "withdraws their consent," while not claiming that their desire to do so rests on any judgment of sin on his part. Should they instead have a full blown trial and judge this boy?

Again, I understand these are hypothetical, but can you give me an example of a church that made a high schooler and elder? If not high school then 19 at least. The session would really do this? Seems like grasping at straws.

3) An elder in the church resigns. His action amounts to a unilateral, administrative judgment essentially negating previous, lawful, orderly, congregational and sessional actions, done in the sight of God; which move strips the kingdom of God of an elder, one called to shepherd the flock and take particular care of their souls. Is he allowed to do this, biblically? Would the proper response of the church be: to deny him this resignation? Should they hold a trial and strip this man of his eldership? What else might they do?

Why did he step down? This doesn't give me enough information. If he simply stepped down just to step down, then that would be a dereliction of duty, which is sin.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This may be a side comment, or not so relative to the post, but I have this feeling some here view discipline in a different way. Discipline is not an act of aggression, but an act of restoration. We discipline in hopes of restoring the brother/sister to where they ought to be.