Pastor member of the local congregation vs. member of presbytery

[Sebastian Heck]

For all you Westminster Standards and 3Forms of Unity people out there, I'd like to hear pros and cons for the "Presbyterian" vs. the "continental Reformed" practice, respectively, of the pastor being a member of the regional church (presbytery) only (as in Presbyterianism) or of the local congregation he serves.

Do you think a biblical (!) case can be made for the one over the other? What are some historical pointers? And practical advantages and disadvantages?

 

[Tim]

I also am interested to understand this issue.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It is worth noting that in the RPCNA the Minister has the choice (correct me if I am wrong Rev. Eshelman/Rev. King) to be a member of the local congregation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In Presbyterianism, there is more than a single angle on the question. At least the following:

1) The make-up of the church. Presbytery is a manifestation of the unity of the church. It's not that we don't believe in local churches. Its that our definition of "local" can grow or shrink according to practical considerations for a whole region. To whom do pastors belong? Is it only the smallest body, the congregation where they've been called? Or to the full regional body? If the whole church is only manifested in a single congregation, too far from any other church to ever meet for mutual support and unity, then the minister must (in the nature of the case) belong to that congregation, as the only church around.

Presbytery is also the "basic unit" of the church in Presbyterianism. You can't have a family without individual members; but one person isn't a family. You can't have a Presbytery without particular congregations; but a single congregation is the church manifested just barely.

In our church-order, Presbytery is really the true "mega-church." Usually, we think of a "mega-church" as one of those ungainly blobs, that all meets under one roof, with the spotlight on the CEO personality. But what if the mega-church was dispersed to the four winds?

Our "little" OPC (denomination) is a national church that actually has (by name on the rolls) upwards of 20,000 members. It also has HUNDREDS of ministers (most with M.Div. credentials), active and retired. And THOUSANDS of elder-shepherds. And HUNDREDS more deacons. Find me a "typical" mega-church (by today's definition) that has such a staff of servants for its flock. Presbytery is the same basic model, just shrunk down to a local region.

Of course, there are inevitably problems and fiefdoms that arise, even in Presbyterianism. But the only legitimate question: is this the model Scripture presents? Won't there be MORE problems if men set up their own systems?

2) Presbytery is the court-of-original-jurisdiction for ministers in Presbyterianism. A local congregation can press charges against their minister, but they will do it first before the regional church. There will not be a private session where the elders first sit in judgment of their minister. His trials will begin before the whole church: ALL the other ministers, and ALL the congregations represented by their commissioners.

The ministers of the church are all supposed to be equals. More than that, they are expected to be--to a man--experts in Scripture. So, for a man on trial for heresy one would expect many appeals to the Bible, exegetical argument based on the original languages, deep (sounding) theological reasoning and technical language. The best place for such a trial to begin is among those having met the highest/rigorous educational requirements in theology as set by the church.

It doesn't follow that a different/lower court (at the congregational level) is the place for misconduct trials to begin. It would only lead to opening arguments in the session that what is being construed as "misconduct" is actually a doctrinal matter. No, a minister will be tried for misconduct before the whole church, especially before all those who should(!) have the clearest idea of what is at stake in maintaining the purity of the collective ministerial office, the purity of the whole church, and the honor of Christ.
_________________

The Continental Reformed system isn't that much different from Presbyterianism. There may be preserved there more of a sense of local-integrity, as well as a closer view of "parity" between elders and ministers. But I don't think this is necessarily the case. The Dort-Church-order is a fine body of work, which like our own must be received, honored, and upheld by actually following it. And it will work fine. Neither of us will have a church, if we ignore our constitutions.

Closing personal observations: the only place I've ever seen the domine held in such reverence is not in Presbyterianism but in the Continental Reformed; and the biggest case of the disease of "clericalism" I've ever seen is in the PCA, who have created a Byzantine-labyrinth of denominational polity in an attempt to create a superior system of ensured "parity" between ruling elders and teaching elders. In the OPC, on paper anyway, we maintain three offices (minister, elder, deacon); and yet I have not seen rampant "lording over the heritage" by the clergy.

 

[jwithnell]

May I add that the deference for the wider body of Christ shown now by the ministers' membership in Presbytery, was demonstrated by the early church in events such as the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the gathering of funds in support of other churches, and the Galatians 2 passage of Paul submitting in private counsel to the brothers at Jerusalem? I just never get the sense of individuals or churches acting independently in the early church -- when things were operating smoothly you see a constant submitting to one another in love.

 

[Gage Browning]

I hate pragmatism most of the time. But this kind of church government goes a long way in protecting the pastor from being run off for any reason much like I use to see in my IFB churches. It does save the pastor's bacon from time to time. It should be hard to get rid of a guy. In some instances I've seen and experienced...in a congregational setting, it was real easy to just vote and dump the guy if the majority wanted him gone. Not to say that we don't have guidelines to fire pastors, we do in presbyterianism, but it ain't super easy. I think it's one pragmatic benefit, although I hate pragmatism most of the time.

 

[jwithnell]

The "pragmatism" in this case goes the other direction too: it protects the congregation from someone teaching or doing something out of accordance with scripture. It occurs to me that the Presbyterian understanding of the depravity of man goes hand in hand with its plurality in leadership. (Both we would insist come from scripture.)

 

[Romans922]

I think presbyterians should be more consistent. All elders should be members of the same court.

 

[Gage Browning]

The "pragmatism" in this case goes the other direction too: it protects the congregation from someone teaching or doing something out of accordance with scripture. It occurs to me that the Presbyterian understanding of the depravity of man goes hand in hand with its plurality in leadership. (Both we would insist come from scripture.)

Amen!

 

[uberkermit]

It is worth noting that in the RPCNA the Minister has the choice (correct me if I am wrong Rev. Eshelman/Rev. King) to be a member of the local congregation.

Not sure about a choice, but in the RPCNA Directory for Church Government, Chapter 3, section II, E4 Meeting for Ordination/Installation (D21), it is stated:

"l. His membership is transferred to the congregation where he is installed."

 

[Scott1]

One advantage for teaching elders being members of presbytery, practically and by anecdotal evidence is
discipline for doctrine or morals of a teaching elder comes by a jury of peers, who are more likely to understand the issues (e.g. theology) and less likely to be as "close" to the pastor of the congregation. Congregations and officers trained by a senior pastor would have a tendency to be more influenced by him.

Presbytery evaluation tends to make for more objective and informed evaluation.

On a small scale, at least, it also tends to acknowledge the church beyond that of one local congregation.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

While true in theory Scott we can all point to very recent examples of Presbyteries unwilling to discipline men because of many of the reasons you note. In my young, inexperienced life I can remember unwillingness to challenge men in Presbytery because of friendship and other things that sinful men are prone to.

 

[Jack K]

One advantage for teaching elders being members of presbytery, practically and by anecdotal evidence is
discipline for doctrine or morals of a teaching elder comes by a jury of peers, who are more likely to understand the issues (e.g. theology) and less likely to be as "close" to the pastor of the congregation.

I'm not following. I don't get how this enters into the issue, since matters of this sort of pastoral discipline take place at the presbytery/classis level in both the Presbyterian and Continental Reformed systems. Both believe regional pastor/elders, not the congregation, should sit in judgment of a pastor on such matters.

The question then becomes: Should a pastor's membership be with the body that credentials and disciplines him (the presbytery/classis), or should it be with the local body where he regularly ministers, worships and fellowships alongside fellow believers? I think there are good arguments on both sides. But picking the congregation does not necessarily mean the presbytery/classis no longer disciplines the man. It doesn't work that way in the Continental Reformed system.

 

[Scott1]

While true in theory Scott we can all point to very recent examples of Presbyteries unwilling to discipline men because of many of the reasons you note. In my young, inexperienced life I can remember unwillingness to challenge men in Presbytery because of friendship and other things that sinful men are prone to.

As we can point to (probably many more) examples of individual congregations failing to act.

.... And as we can point to many instances where that system has worked well, and seemingly prevented potential problems alos.

Any system can fail, but there is wisdom in spreading out the discernment, especially from people who are suboordinate to their leader (e.g. a powerful local pastor to a congregation).
There is also wisdom in spreading out doctrinal matters, which can be complex, amongst a "jury of peers."

Not sure you are arguing against that, as it is common principle among presbyterian denominations.

Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

But picking the congregation does not necessarily mean the presbytery/classis no longer disciplines the man. It doesn't work that way in the Continental Reformed system.

Same reasoning as above.

In the presbyterian system, the local congregation can and often does inititate process for the morals or discipline of a teaching elder, presbytery could also. So, there is a component of the congregation also, but also the element of a "fair hearing." This is similar to concepts in our judicial system (trial by jury of appears, change of venue, etc.).

 

[N. Eshelman]

It is worth noting that in the RPCNA the Minister has the choice (correct me if I am wrong Rev. Eshelman/Rev. King) to be a member of the local congregation.

We are actually members of both the presbytery and the congregation. Personally, I would rather maintain the old practice of the presbytery holding our membership- that way the church government is actually made up of presbytery oversight (pastor) and congregational oversight (ruling elders).