First Presbytery Meeting
This past Saturday I attended my first Presbytery meeting as a ruling elder (RE) from Chattanooga Valley Presbyterian Church (CVPC). A presbytery is simply…
- A court composed of Presbyterian Church ministers and representative elders of a particular locality.
- The district represented by this court.
At the local church level teaching elders (TE) and ruling elders (RE) are charged with the spiritual oversight and governance of the church. These churches make up what are called presbyteries. In our denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), there are approximately seventy three presbyteries. These then roll up into the General Assembly (GA), which meets once a year. It is a grass roots form of church government that balances local authority with higher levels of accountability. The most recent and 33rd GA was last July here in Chattanooga.
The meeting was hosted by Wayside Presbyterian Church on Signal Mountain. The number of voting delegates within the presbyetery’s churches is limited to two RE’s. I am not certain if a similar limit is placed on TE’s (e.g., if you have multiple assistant pastors), but I am assuming that there is not since TE’s without a call can vote. Needless to say, I was a voting delegate since we only sent two ruling elders.
One of the items that was up for vote was an amendment to The Book of Church Order (BCO) that created quite a stir at GA. The amendment was presented as follows.
Amend BCO 24-1 to add a new item “b. his knowledge of Bible content,” and reletter subsequent items accordingly (M33GA, 33-51,III, 6).
[Note: The Assembly, as part of the resolution, "resolved that this new requirement be applied only to those officers ordained after the adoption of this measure, and that all PCA courts and her officers presently ordained be exhorted to be diligent in their mastery of Bible knowledge and application."]
The item generated significant discussion on both sides. I do not think anyone was against the idea of elders knowing bible content, but most in opposition felt that 1) the current BCO was explicit enough and 2) that the practical application could be burdensome to churches. The measure was just barely defeated with a vote of twenty-six (26) in favor to thirty-two (32) against. The measure must still be voted on by all the other Presbyeteries, but our recommendation was to keep 24-1 unchanged.
…Each nominee shall then be examined in:
a. his Christian experience, especially his personal character and family management (based on the qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9),
b. his knowledge of the system of doctrine, government, discipline contained in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America (BCO Preface III, The Constitution Defined),
c. the duties of the office to which he has been nominated, and
d. his willingness to give assent to the questions required for ordination. (BCO 24-5)
So that was my first ever presbytery vote, which is why I am writing this down. As one who usually believes in enforcing the laws we already have on the books versus making new ones, you can guess where I landed on the issue. It is not that I think knowledge of Biblical content is overrated, but rather that it is implicit in the current standards of the BCO. That is, if you meet the above qualifications then it is likely that you also have a sufficient grasp of the Bible. What is important to keep in mind is that all elders, regardless of their tenure, ought to be diligent in their continued studies.
I was also thinking of a third (although lesser) concern. While you certainly could take exception to parts of the Westminster Standards, you cannot argue about the core essence of them. With regard to the amendment, how does the local church determine the appropriate level of knowledge of Biblical content? Each individual church might see it in varying degrees. Beyond being an administrative burden, the amendment could be used as a political tool. It could tip the scales away from the grass roots nature of the denomination. In other words, the vaguary of the added language widens the door for possible abuse (although this is not to say that there could not be any such distortion under the current rules).
Echoing in my mind was a comment that was made earlier with regard to the changes being recommended by the Strategic Planning Committee. “Any system will work as long as our hearts are in the right place.” The context was in follow-up to a series of remarks that highlighted the qualifications, sincerity and work effort put forth by the members of the committee. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and littered with poor analysis. That is why we have rules of governance and order in the first place–because our hearts are not always in the right place.
5 comments
What do you think led to that amendment being presented?
Most in favor would probably say that it is possible to understand reformed doctrine without actually having a good grasp of Biblical content. And by “good” and “content” I mean being able to name the books of the Bible, give a general overview of each (the history, scope, context and content), etc. The question begged is whether the qualifications in Timothy are more about character vs. knowledge and how the two relate.
Also, there are probably elders in the PCA who ought not to be elders, and so the added requirement would help weed those people out (however, it is not a retroactive amendment). Then again, this probably would happen less if section 24-1 was handled appropriately. Not that it happens a lot…you’re probably talking about a small percentage anyway.
Of course, on the flip side there are many RE’s (plus John Piper) who would say that the difference between a TE and an RE is minute. Make too much of a distinction and then you end up with the clergy and the laity–just like the Catholics. I’ve often heard the argument that RE’s ought to be able to administer sacraments, give benedictions, etc. If you are going to say that, then I suppose you would want to insure that RE’s have the same level of knowledge that we require of TE’s. You should have heard some of the questions that were asked of those undergoing licensure and/or ordination. I would have been stumped on a few of them, although most of the candidates “study-up” for the exams.
I would probably be more open to the amendment in the future, preferably if it were modified as to not be so open-ended.
Sir,
Please take a look at
http://www.presbyterian.com
It exposes the cult-like activities of The Presbyterian Church in America, specifically the sham they have made of Church Order, individual decency, and the indescribable long-term sadness as the consequences. The opening page, addressing the latest travesty of February 8, 2006, from pastor Stanley H. Pace, and the comentary, regarding the email of Pastor John M. Warren, Jr. are good starters, should you have limited time, to block out to understand this long term matter.
Many continue to discus theology as an abstract, the PCA included, but only the PCA, as far as I know has permeated throughout itself, abject widely known and recognized evil, as described; and they refuse to do anything about it. It is all witnessed by official records and credible men of the cloth.
Sincerely,
Carl Fox
(owner, presbyterian.com)
[...] I get several spam comments each day. You never see them because they go into a moderatation queue and are blacklisted upon review. Yesterday I received my first ever troll comment and decided to cap it instead of deleting it (as did Ben). The plugin is still an alpha release. Installation also requires manual editing of your SQL database. [...]
I have capped the above comment and closed commenting altogether on this thread. Let me explain…
Mr. Fox has, no doubt, been deeply hurt. However it came about, the fact remains that he has been wounded. That simple fact should be acknowledged and respected. While no one on this blog will likely have any direct dealings with Mr. Fox, we should recognize and respect the real hurt—having faith-filled confidence that even a “fire-breathing zealot” intent on the destruction of the church and its leadership is not beyond the reach of God’s redeeming grace in Jesus Christ. As we respond in our hearts and to others, we should be careful to acknowledge the greater power of the gospel. After all, Saul was not exactly in his right mind as he ran, ranting down the road to Damascus.
Given that, as far as a reading of the materials goes, the only people involved in the long-running dispute were sinners with a deep, passionate desire for their own glory and self-protection. There is no doubt that some of the hurt stems from real sin; neither is there any doubt whatsoever that a significant amount of his hurt (and the circumstances in which it was incurred) came about because of his own sin. Neither is there any doubt that his current ranting against his God, the God of his circumstances, stem from his own sinfulness and are only deepening his own hurt and inflicting undue hurt on others around him.
We should be under no illusions about the PCA. If you want to find a denomination that incarnates the reality that the Church of Jesus Christ is made up of sinners, the PCA would be as rich a starting place as any other. Pride and arrogance, self-glorification and self-protection are easily found shaping, driving, and informing the ministry of the denomination. At the same time, the humiliating work of the Spirit is also easily discovered among its leadership who, themselves, by God’s tender and convicting grace, are aware of their desperate dependence upon the Holy Spirit.
All of that to say: Mr. Fox’s extremely public and pro-active gossip and slander will no doubt cause a bit of discussion, if not unfounded accusation and misinformed conclusions about the denomination. Rather than open this thread up for comments, I would ask that we respond to this in such a way that 1) puts the brakes on the gossip and slander (because none of us knows the ins and outs of the case); 2) does not show “defensiveness” of PCA leadership or “dismissiveness” of Mr. Fox; and 3) reminds any who would ask that the Biblical “hermeneutic” for properly understanding and making sense of “the Church” is “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (the hermeneutic that Paul gives us in his letter to the most notorious of “Sinful Saints,” the Corinthian church).
While the gossip will have little impact to the structure or practice of the PCA, it can do harm of varying degrees to the uninformed, unrooted and unsuspecting–not just in terms of the PCA’s reputation, but more importantly, to the reputation of the Gospel itself. Let us be ready to respond to such inquiries with honesty and humility, seeking to turn the spotlight to the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.
———-
If anyone wishes to discuss this at greater length, then use this form to contact me.