Locus of ministerial membership

[py3ak]

In Presbyterian circles, ministers are members of presbytery rather than of a local congregation. I am interested in books/articles/lectures exploring this topic, if anyone has recommendations. (I have seen Hodge, Church Polity 14.8 on a discussion that arose about this matter.)

Also, what do you think? I have heard that Van Til requested to be allowed to become a member of the church -- meaning the congregation, rather than the presbytery.

Is the locus of ministerial membership properly in a particular presbytery? Is this a Biblical argument, or a question of convenient order? What are its advantages? What downsides might it have? Is this practice consistent with a two-office view?

 

[Romans922]

Not all Presbyterian ministers are members of just a Presbytery some are members of both Presbytery and Congregation.

 

[py3ak]

Not all Presbyterian ministers are members of just a Presbytery some are members of both Presbytery and Congregation.

Is there a provision for that in the BOCO?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I think Andrew was referring to the process in the RPCNA where the minister is a member of the local church he serves.

 

[Romans922]

Yes I wasn't speaking of the OPC or any particular denomination, I know of one that a minister is a member of both (I think) and there may be more.

 

[fredtgreco]

In general, the number of Presbyterian ministers that are members of both is very, very small.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One of the answers as to why it is the case in Presbyterianism, doctrinally/practically not necessarily historically, has to do with frank acknowledgement that there are in fact ordered hierarchies in the world. There are some that are more fixed by nature (so, the parents are over their young children, e.g.); while our social-orders are allowed more variety.

In the church, Christ is the Head (which most acknowledge); but thereafter, are all men but a single rank? What of the apostles? Were they ministers of State? Yes; while the government of Christ is of another kind than all those of the Gentiles, it does not follow that there never has been "rank" to "pull." That's not the picture we get from Paul's letters. He says he did forego some rightful privileges. And he threatened and laid down punitive discipline. These are evidences he had rank; but he also had the humility of a foot-washer, which was one way Christ demonstrated the proper exercise of greatness in his kingdom.

If we have discerned the ordinary structure of the church by way of order: organization and rule, then we may ask the question of original jurisdiction. The Presbyterians concluded that a minister should be examined by his peers, equals in rank and responsibility, ability, and learning. It might be fairly simple for passing-educated laymen to judge a minister in a moral matter (guilty of adultery with a member, for example); but what about his doctrine? Someone questions the man's teaching, and he starts quoting Greek. "Oh, you don't know this? Well I do, so be still and learn."

Rather than split original jurisdiction, moral and doctrinal (and what if the line blurs?), it is sensible to place all original jurisdiction as it pertains to the minister with his Presbytery. Consider a simple "regional church," say a small city with four quarters/parishes, one congregation in each. All together, as Presbyterians we recognize not just the four, but the one church, which ruling council is the Presbytery. The body of ministers, together with the particular congregations' representatives, comprise that government.

We recognize that individually the ministers have their own charges, obedient to calls from the particular congregations. But as churchmen, they have peculiar concern for more than the lesser charge. And I don't mean that local elders (churchmen of a kind) do not have interests wider than parochial. But those not only typically have outside business interests, not making their living on the gospel as the ministers do; they have vested exclusive interest in the congregation of which they are members first, and officers second. Whereas, the ministers are uniquely situated in the church, it being all their business (exclusive of family, which is a calling common to humanity).

It makes sense for all four congregations, the whole church constituted under our hypothetical Presbytery, to have their government theoretically always existing and functioning, even if it must meet to be seen and do business. (Now, the Dutch Reformed only have that broader council in "existence" when they call a meeting, so there is no other place for a minister to have his membership besides the local congregation; but they also recognize that one church is but a part of the encompassing church.)

The ministers benefit from their collegial and formal connection, not that it should become a club and protection racket, but that they come together as accountable to the whole church, and in the interest of the whole. An expelled minister could not depart one congregation in the Presbytery, and present himself at another for a prospective call, not unless one of those congregations was presently in schism. This man already has no more standing in the recognized church (the association), perhaps having been completely handed over to Satan by his shepherding peers. Their duty includes warning the whole church as flock to avoid the predator.

Perhaps the above gives some answer, and fruit for further discussion.

 

[py3ak]

I think Andrew was referring to the process in the RPCNA where the minister is a member of the local church he serves.

Interesting. Do you know where I could read about that?

 

[py3ak]

One of the answers as to why it is the case in Presbyterianism, doctrinally/practically not necessarily historically, has to do with frank acknowledgement that there are in fact ordered hierarchies in the world. There are some that are more fixed by nature (so, the parents are over their young children, e.g.); while our social-orders are allowed more variety.

In the church, Christ is the Head (which most acknowledge); but thereafter, are all men but a single rank? What of the apostles? Were they ministers of State? Yes; while the government of Christ is of another kind than all those of the Gentiles, it does not follow that there never has been "rank" to "pull." That's not the picture we get from Paul's letters. He says he did forego some rightful privileges. And he threatened and laid down punitive discipline. These are evidences he had rank; but he also had the humility of a foot-washer, which was one way Christ demonstrated the proper exercise of greatness in his kingdom.

If we have discerned the ordinary structure of the church by way of order: organization and rule, then we may ask the question of original jurisdiction. The Presbyterians concluded that a minister should be examined by his peers, equals in rank and responsibility, ability, and learning. It might be fairly simple for passing-educated laymen to judge a minister in a moral matter (guilty of adultery with a member, for example); but what about his doctrine? Someone questions the man's teaching, and he starts quoting Greek. "Oh, you don't know this? Well I do, so be still and learn."

Rather than split original jurisdiction, moral and doctrinal (and what if the line blurs?), it is sensible to place all original jurisdiction as it pertains to the minister with his Presbytery. Consider a simple "regional church," say a small city with four quarters/parishes, one congregation in each. All together, as Presbyterians we recognize not just the four, but the one church, which ruling council is the Presbytery. The body of ministers, together with the particular congregations' representatives, comprise that government.

We recognize that individually the ministers have their own charges, obedient to calls from the particular congregations. But as churchmen, they have peculiar concern for more than the lesser charge. And I don't mean that local elders (churchmen of a kind) do not have interests wider than parochial. But those not only typically have outside business interests, not making their living on the gospel as the ministers do; they have vested exclusive interest in the congregation of which they are members first, and officers second. Whereas, the ministers are uniquely situated in the church, it being all their business (exclusive of family, which is a calling common to humanity).

It makes sense for all four congregations, the whole church constituted under our hypothetical Presbytery, to have their government theoretically always existing and functioning, even if it must meet to be seen and do business. (Now, the Dutch Reformed only have that broader council in "existence" when they call a meeting, so there is no other place for a minister to have his membership besides the local congregation; but they also recognize that one church is but a part of the encompassing church.)

The ministers benefit from their collegial and formal connection, not that it should become a club and protection racket, but that they come together as accountable to the whole church, and in the interest of the whole. An expelled minister could not depart one congregation in the Presbytery, and present himself at another for a prospective call, not unless one of those congregations was presently in schism. This man already has no more standing in the recognized church (the association), perhaps having been completely handed over to Satan by his shepherding peers. Their duty includes warning the whole church as flock to avoid the predator.

Perhaps the above gives some answer, and fruit for further discussion.

Thank you, Bruce, that was very thoughtful. Certainly the practice is not levelling. And on a question of discipline, it's difficult to imagine any circumstances where local feeling doesn't run rather high, for good or ill.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What's interesting is how the older Dutch manner was to pay deepest respect to the dominie. Almost seems like a kind of compensation, that he's one of us, yes; but he's so much more than even an elder. I get the sense the Reformed held onto acknowledging that "otherness" longer than anything like it prevailed in Presbyterian circles. And yes, history and migration has had definite impact on development and perspective.

What I heard a lot of, going to school with the Southern Presbyterians was, the three-office view was basically "hierarchical," and the two-office view was obviously less so. The OPC minister was bound to view himself more "highly" than the people; whereas the PCA teaching elder was bound to be more egalitarian. Experience, limited as mine has been, has revealed the contrary inclinations.

Having familiarized myself with Hodge vs. Thornwell, I agree with the former that a two-office scheme tends to the creation of a harder line within the congregation between elders and laity (by no means is it a rule). Having a "clergy" can, in many cases, be a guard against "clericalism;" and being "anti-clergy" can foster a real clericalism while not acknowledging it.

As I see it, the latter form of Presbyterianism is connected to the Dutch manner, for similar cause.

 

[Edward]

Do you know where I could read about that?

It's set out in the Constitutional Documents of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
at Chapter 2 (The Congregation) Paragraph 1 of the Directory of Church Government , page D-4, PDF Page 174 http://reformedpresbyterian.org/downloads/constitution2013.pdf

"The teaching elder/pastor is a member of the congregation and his ministerial credentials are held by the presbytery."

Although I suspect you are looking for history/discussion, and not merely the rule.

 

[py3ak]

Thank you, Edward! Commentary would be nice, but documentation is a very good start.

That's an intriguing observation, Bruce. Perhaps if an impulse if given a formal outlet it tends to prevent irregularities in its expression?

 

[MW]

For the presbytery to exist as the radical court of the church it must have a membership. For the presbytery to ordain men with the power to administer word and sacraments it must itself have a constituent membership of men with the power to administer word and sacraments. Take away this constituent membership of ministers and you take away the radical power of the presbytery. Such a system might bear the name of "presbyterian," but it would lack the fundamental nature of the thing.

 

[Romans922]

For the presbytery to ordain men with the power to administer word and sacraments it must itself have a constituent membership of men with the power to administer word and sacraments.

So what would prevent men of this description from being members of a local congregation and Presbytery?

 

[MW]

So what would prevent men of this description from being members of a local congregation and Presbytery?

The idea of exercising authority over a body while being subject to it is incongruous. Scripture reveals that there should be teachers and those who are taught, rulers and those who are ruled.

Practically, it would open the door to conflicts of interest, especially when a complaint comes against the minister or an action of the congregation comes under review. At these points the minister would visibly demonstrate that he is really a member of one or the other.

 

[Romans922]

Practically, it would open the door to conflicts of interest, especially when a complaint comes against the minister or an action of the congregation comes under review. At these points the minister would visibly demonstrate that he is really a member of one or the other.

Practically, I suppose it could be, but as mentioned above, that doesn't seem to be the case with the American Covenantors (RPCNA).

 

[MW]

Practically, I suppose it could be, but as mentioned above, that doesn't seem to be the case with the American Covenantors (RPCNA).

If you are speaking of the wording in their constitution, then I would say it leaves room for this practical conflict. "The teaching elder/pastor is a member of the congregation and his ministerial credentials are held by the presbytery." This is effectively saying that he is not really a member of the congregation in so far as he is a minister. Only insofar as he does not pursue his ministerial calling in the congregation can he be deemed a member of it. Any minister, then, who conscientiously acts as a full-time minister of the congregation would not be acting as a member of the congregation at all.

If you are referring to their history as a whole, I don't know what has transpired in specific cases, so I cannot comment.

 

[Pergamum]

How would those who follow the 1689 differ and what would be their reasoning?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How would those who follow the 1689 differ and what would be their reasoning?

Baptists are congregationalist in polity, even when formally associated. Surely, the LBC creators were, on principle.

I've never heard of a Baptist minister who was not a member of a Baptist church, somewhere.

 

[py3ak]

If a higher (broader) assembly can properly weigh in on such matters as ordination, discipline, and so forth it seems the essential principle has effectively been granted: that the presbytery is as truly an expression of the church as a local congregation. If the validity of the presbytery as a church is granted, exact arrangements may still vary as a matter of wisdom, but it becomes essential that the presbytery should have actual members or as a null set it would be only hypothetically a church.