# Ruling Elder terms of service - Rotating or for life?



## caoclan

Wanted some thoughts on RE/Deacon elections. Currently my PCA church nominates elders/deacons for an indefinite (life, resignation, or discipline, I guess) period of time. We are considering elections on a 4-year rotational basis, with elections happening every year, rotating approximately 25% out every year, when fully implemented. My church has approximately 2,000 congregants. This change will be decided by a congregational vote.

Can I get some thoughts (particularly from those who believe an elder-led congregation is correct) on the pros/cons of making the switch? If more info is needed, please let me know.


----------



## Weston Stoler

From Scripture I don't see a place where elders are ever relieved of duty. I believe unless they step down or are asked to step down for doctrinal or moral reasons their should be no reason to have rotating elders. Although this is how my church practices it.


----------



## Romans922

If an elder/deacon is called by God to be an elder/deacon, then how can God's people then say..."Well, we should rotate this, they shouldn't have to serve all the time. We need to make this look like America's government more and more." (which American Presbyterianism often reflects). No, elders/deacons are called by God to be elders/deacons. Why hinder their calling by rotating them? 

Another problem here is that the leadership of the church is leaving major decisions that will affect the spiritual well-being of the church up to the congregation. That is like Shepherd saying to the sheep, "What do you want to do today? Run off, okay, go on!"


----------



## sastark

What Andrew said. Is there a scriptural basis for "terms" of service for elders/deacons? If not, by what authority does a church limit the service of a man called to be an elder?

As a side note, I find it hard to believe that, even in a congregation of 2000, you have enough qualified men to serve as elders to be able to fill a Session, AND have 25% of the men rotate out every year. I looked at your church's website. Currently, you have 19 men listed as Ruling Elders (Link). Assuming you plan on keeping the Session the same size if term limits are imposed, that means between 4 and 5 men rotating off the Session every year, and 4 to 5 men coming on to Session every year. You would, at a minimum, need 5 more elders than what you currently have, but I'd be suspicious that it wouldn't always be the same 4 or 5 men coming on/leaving Session, which means you would need new men to fill those empty spots. It sounds like an easy way to force unqualified men into the office of elder simply because you "don't have enough guys".

(In case anyone was wondering about the math, like I was, a congregation of 2000, with 19 ruling elders is a ratio of 1 RE to every 105 congregants. Assuming women and children make up about 75% of that number, that means one man in every 26 men is currently serving as an elder. If you add just 5 more elders, your ratio of elders to men in the congregation changes to 1 elder for every 20 men in the congregation. Now, maybe y'all in Tennessee are blessed with an overabundance of qualified men, but I'd be hard pressed to find 1 man in 20 in California that is qualified and called to serve as an elder.)

One final note: Will the Teaching Elders also be rotating out every 4 years? Why not?


----------



## Zenas

Sean, 

I've heard of some of the changes proposed there and they're really encouraging. 

Practically speaking, I think terms are very favorable. Things change over time, as well as people. Terms allow the elders to take a break, as well as both elder and the congregant to re-evaluate when or if the elder comes back up for re-election. I've seen elders on sessions who long ago should have departed for a litany of reasons. If true term rotations had been imposed and executed, perhaps a lot of issues could have been avoided. 

So encouraged to hear about the changes being discussed at Independent.  I'm not a member there, so my opinion obviously doesn't matter, but it is encouraging. Just about all of my in-laws are now members or otherwise visiting though.


----------



## Romans922

Andrew, 

Sabbaticals allow men to take a break...

Why would elders need to be re-elected? They are already called by God, are they not? Perhaps, like what Seth said, elders need to be more careful concerning these examinations of elders, most probably shouldn't be there. 

Also, if I was in Sean's shoes, at a congregational meeting, I would stand up and speak to the issue (when the motion is put before the congregation) and state something like the following: 

"I find it a very sad state of affairs when such major decisions as to how the Church is run is put before the sheep for a vote, when Christ has given such authority to the elders of our church, and whereas Christ is head of the Church. Sheep shouldn't be telling the under-shepherd nor THE Shepherd how to run the Church. First, I encourage the elders to study this matter from the Scriptures where Christ directs the flock and come to a conclusion themselves. Second, as is the sinful and rebellious nature of the flock of God, it seems that there would be no need for a vote given that the sheep will always desire to have more power than has been given to them. We will, if left to our decision, choose for ourselves to have the ability to have more elders ordained more often because each of us here desires more power than what Christ has given to us and/or called us to." 

I would probably then move that either the flock contrary to our natural inclination vote down the motion OR move a substitute motion for the Session to decide the matter. But that is only if I were a member there. 


As an aside, I might add in to my speech what Seth stated, "Will the Teaching Elders also be rotating out every 4 years?"


----------



## Zenas

I understand where you're coming from re: the sheep desiring more power. I've seen the opposite work though. I've seen elders who have a stranglehold on their position and the congregation use it to oppress the sheep. 

There must be a solution.


----------



## jwithnell

I have seen elders removed after their gifts have been re-evaluated. Sabbaticals are also a possibility for those who need a break. If a congregation is having difficulties with elders having a "stranglehold" presbytery should be consulted. Almost nothing in scripture or presbyterian practice supports terms. It is, to the best of my knowledge, a modern innovation that allows people to "take their turn."


----------



## Romans922

Zenas said:


> I understand where you're coming from re: the sheep desiring more power. I've seen the opposite work though. I've seen elders who have a stranglehold on their position and the congregation use it to oppress the sheep.
> 
> There must be a solution.



Andrew, that's true however, God's Word is greater. Just because something 'works' doesn't mean that's what should take place.

At least within American Presbyterianism there are ways to deal with individual elders and sessions who oppress the Sheep. The sheep can call upon the Session to see their sin or call then upon the Presbytery to deal with the matter.

But the path of pragmatism, which is often what rotating sessions come down to, is not the way to go. It seems to me at least an unbiblical practice.


Another parallel you could make, you know sometimes it has worked where people haven't been coming to worship, to get people in the door, make worship more entertaining, offer something to those who come. But that is not what God calls us to (not pragmatism) but what His Word commands and provides for us. That is the faithful ministry of the Word in the means of grace. If you do that, your congregation may shrink... Yep, but that is God's will. He saves His people through His means. He rules over the Church the way He has called it to be ruled. This is my understanding of Scripture.


----------



## TimV

> 24-7. Ordination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is perpetual; nor
> can such offices be laid aside at pleasure; nor can any person be degraded
> from either office but by deposition after regular trial; yet a ruling elder or
> deacon may have reasons which he deems valid for being released from the
> active duties of his office. In such a case the Session, after conference with
> him and careful consideration of the matter, may, if it thinks proper, accept
> his resignation and dissolve the official relationship which exists between
> him and the church.



From the PCA BCO. Sounds like another big PCA church that just doesn't give a fig about their constitution.


----------



## sastark

Zenas said:


> I understand where you're coming from re: the sheep desiring more power. I've seen the opposite work though. I've seen elders who have a stranglehold on their position and the congregation use it to oppress the sheep.
> 
> There must be a solution.



Andrew, I understand and have seen that, as well. The solution to such problems is an appeal to Presbytery, though, not introducing man made regulations into the church.


----------



## Zenas

I guess I just find it incredibly easy to Monday-morning quarterback issues like this. I've been under abuses with no recourse. This system can help to stem those abuses. I also don't find it an unbiblical practice. The Bible doesn't prescribe that the church be limited and governed by a constitution, but, because it's practical to have rules and procedures, we do. This is just another rule that is being proposed.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

In the interest of peace, I will not delve into the issue any further than this: an appeal to presbytery is difficult when the session has power to make important decisions that directly affect members of your family should you do so. I understand the role of presbytery and I understand that, largely, that is a very easy route to conflict resolution. That doesn't mean there aren't caveats to the general rule that make that road, at best, difficult to get to.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

I remember talking with my broadly-evangelical father-in-law and mentioning that at our church, the office of elder was for life. He was astounded as in his opinion this would be unfair and would result in a stale leadership. Whether or not my father-in-law's comment makes worldly sense or not, temporary elders do not seem to me to be biblical.

I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.


----------



## Tripel

ericfromcowtown said:


> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.



Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.


----------



## fredtgreco

TimV said:


> 24-7. Ordination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is perpetual; nor
> can such offices be laid aside at pleasure; nor can any person be degraded
> from either office but by deposition after regular trial; yet a ruling elder or
> deacon may have reasons which he deems valid for being released from the
> active duties of his office. In such a case the Session, after conference with
> him and careful consideration of the matter, may, if it thinks proper, accept
> his resignation and dissolve the official relationship which exists between
> him and the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the PCA BCO. Sounds like another big PCA church that just doesn't give a fig about their constitution.
Click to expand...

Tim,

This provision does not apply to terms or rotations. An elder who has rotated off active duty is "uninstalled" not "un-eldered." There is no such thing as an "inactive" elder. Rotation does not depose a man from office either in the congregation (cf. BCO 24-7) or from the eldership in general (i.e. demitting the office, BCO 38-2) That means he is still eligible for service in Presbytery and GA (having been voted to be a commissioner to such by the Session). When the provision in 24-7 is applied, the elder is no longer an elder of that congregation, hence if he is elected again to the office, he must be re-installed per BCO 24-8:


> 24-8. When a ruling elder or deacon who has been released from his
> official relation is again elected to his office in the same or another church,
> he shall be installed after the above form with the omission of ordination


----------



## fredtgreco

sastark said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you're coming from re: the sheep desiring more power. I've seen the opposite work though. I've seen elders who have a stranglehold on their position and the congregation use it to oppress the sheep.
> 
> There must be a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, I understand and have seen that, as well. The solution to such problems is an appeal to Presbytery, though, not introducing man made regulations into the church.
Click to expand...

The PCA BCO makes this de jure impossible. The reality of life in the PCA, ARP and OPC makes this de facto impossible.


----------



## Zenas

Tripel said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.
Click to expand...


This is the only way I've ever heard of this functioning. No one loses their ordination. Only their position on the Session.


----------



## TimV

Thanks for the correction!!!

We started that rotation system in SA and it ended in pretty much every man having a turn as an elder. Drunks, p#rn readers etc.. got to be elders. Why? Not only limited numbers or men, but not wanting to make men feel bad if they didn't get their turn. The whole thing was a disaster.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Tripel said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.
Click to expand...


That's not how I read the OP. The OP talked about rotating out elders and having elections every year to replace those being "rotated out". That sounds like the office of elder being temporary, with new men being elected to replace men who would no longer serve as a ruling elder, on session or in any other capacity. Perhaps Sean can clarify.

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------




Zenas said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the only way I've ever heard of this functioning. No one loses their ordination. Only their position on the Session.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. If that's the case, then why is there any need for elections every 4 years to replace those being rotated out?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

TimV said:


> We started that rotation system in SA and it ended in pretty much every man having a turn as an elder. Drunks, p#rn readers etc.. got to be elders. Why? Not only limited numbers or men, but not wanting to make men feel bad if they didn't get their turn. The whole thing was a disaster.





That was my experience in the PC(USA) with rotation. You ended up in the smaller churches with a whole congregation of ordained Elders and Deacons. The Session became merely the board of governors that everyone took their turn being a member of when the time came. As you noted the only criteria for the Eldership became a beating heart.


----------



## Weston Stoler

I remember Being in an IFB church when I was 15 and asking one of the deacons why he wasn't at the deacons meeting that day.(because for them deacon and elder where combined) and he said that he no longer was a deacon because they have new ones every Xnumber of years. I really didn't understand it. I still don't understand it now that I go to a presbyterian church now.....


----------



## Zenas

[/COLOR]


Zenas said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the only way I've ever heard of this functioning. No one loses their ordination. Only their position on the Session.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. If that's the case, then why is there any need for elections every 4 years to replace those being rotated out?[/QUOTE]

To be elected back onto the Session to replace someone rolling off the Session.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Zenas said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've have heard of some larger PCA congregations (Perimeter in Atlanta for example) that retain perpetual eldership, but have a smaller subset of those elders serve on session, with those elders rotating on and off of session every couple of years to allow for sabatticals and for elders to fill other organizational / teaching capacities outside of session for a period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we're talking about in the OP? All of the PCA churches that I know of (including mine) that use a rotation also retain perpetual eldership. This does not go against the BCO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only way I've ever heard of this functioning. No one loses their ordination. Only their position on the Session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused. If that's the case, then why is there any need for elections every 4 years to replace those being rotated out?
Click to expand...


To be elected back onto the Session to replace someone rolling off the Session.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Andrew. Perhaps I'm more slow than usual this morning, but I guess that's what I don't understand. If a church has say 30 elders and 15 on session and they rotate every 2 or 3 years, then why the need for another election? Wouldn't it make sense for the rotation then to be an automatic thing? The congregation has already found all 30 qualified and elected them, why have another election? It seems redundant, and it's not really a rotation if all the elders aren't rotated in and out in some fashion.


----------



## Zenas

You're rotated off. The congregation has to elect you back onto the session though after an obligatory year (or whatever time period) off. I think a church could set it up like you outline, they just don't seem to.


----------



## Jack K

My PCA church used a sabbatical rotation. But you didn't cease to be an elder/deacon during your sabbatical. You got a year off from many regular duties, but might still be called on in any of a number of situations and were considered to still have elder/deacon authority. There was no congregational vote taken when the sabbatical was over. You simply took on more duties again. 

Some officers considered the break refreshing and generally helpful in their ministry. Others found it unnecessary. The sabbatical was never strictly enforced, merely encouraged.

There were a number of cases where an officer used his sabbatical as a built-in opportunity to reconsider whether or not he truly was called to his office. A few resigned permanently. In my estimation, this was a good thing in some cases and maybe not in others.


----------



## fredtgreco

TimV said:


> Thanks for the correction!!!
> 
> We started that rotation system in SA and it ended in pretty much every man having a turn as an elder. Drunks, p#rn readers etc.. got to be elders. Why? Not only limited numbers or men, but not wanting to make men feel bad if they didn't get their turn. The whole thing was a disaster.


Yes. I have seen similar things happen as well. I've also seen the opposite, where elders are virtually untouchable and the worst of louts are in office. I once heard of an elder who explained away a murder by another man with the comment "that guy just needed killin'." Nothing was done about it, because unless the Session acts to remove a man, it is impossible (in accordance with the BCO) in the PCA for either the congregation or the Presbytery to do so, apart from charges. And you must remember that the court that hears charges against an elder is the Session of the church.


----------



## Scott1

Romans922 said:


> Sabbaticals allow men to take a break...
> 
> Why would elders need to be re-elected? They are already called by God, are they not? Perhaps, like what Seth said, elders need to be more careful concerning these examinations of elders, most probably shouldn't be there.



Yes, the sabbath and related as a principle, the sabbatical, applies to all.

In practice some local churches use 3 year terms, up to two consecutive, then mandatory sabbatical of at least 1 year.

Office is calling by God, perpetual, it is not lightly cast aside because the call is not. This can seem heavy, but it underscores the high calling of office (deacon and elder), God's calling without repentance, and faith that God will supply and confirm.

The reason for re-election (this being different than ordination) is that circumstances might change, such as family commitments or family problems that (temporarily) hinder from service.

Part of the I Timothy 3 requirement of office is that the wife of an officer (deacon, elder) is examined for qualifications cited there. It's possible that could change to the point of hindering the officer, having as it were, an exemplary, not perfect, but exemplary life as required.

Having required breaks by using terms is a very wise idea.


----------



## Zenas

fredtgreco said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction!!!
> 
> We started that rotation system in SA and it ended in pretty much every man having a turn as an elder. Drunks, p#rn readers etc.. got to be elders. Why? Not only limited numbers or men, but not wanting to make men feel bad if they didn't get their turn. The whole thing was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I have seen similar things happen as well. I've also seen the opposite, where elders are virtually untouchable and the worst of louts are in office. I once heard of an elder who explained away a murder by another man with the comment "that guy just needed killin'." Nothing was done about it, because unless the Session acts to remove a man, it is impossible (in accordance with the BCO) in the PCA for either the congregation or the Presbytery to do so, apart from charges. And you must remember that the court that hears charges against an elder is the Session of the church.
Click to expand...


This. 

The reality is there are sessions, whether they be many or few, that don't reflect what we all envision a session of being. When I envision a session, I think of men like Josh, Fred, Tim, Andrew, etc. The reality is that there may be only one or two elders on a session that remotely remind one of the aforementioned. Once they are ordained and installed, I can't imagine a circumstance where they will be removed. There was one elder who I recall who's family was full of premarital sex and teen pregnancy. He told everyone, in no uncertain terms, that "that's just what kids do these days and you'll just have to get over it." It certainly was not to be addressed as what it was.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> We started that rotation system in SA and it ended in pretty much every man having a turn as an elder. Drunks, p#rn readers etc.. got to be elders. Why? Not only limited numbers or men, but not wanting to make men feel bad if they didn't get their turn. The whole thing was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my experience in the PC(USA) with rotation. You ended up in the smaller churches with a whole congregation of ordained Elders and Deacons. The Session became merely the board of governors that everyone took their turn being a member of when the time came. As you noted the only criteria for the Eldership became a beating heart.
Click to expand...


That's a big 10-4 Houston, and a lot of why 10-A got passed


----------



## sastark

fredtgreco said:


> The PCA BCO makes this de jure impossible. The reality of life in the PCA, ARP and OPC makes this de facto impossible.



Fred: Apologies if I misunderstand, but is it not possible for a member of a PCA (or OPC, ARP, etc) congregation to bring charges against an elder? That's what I meant by "appeal to Presbytery". If a charge is brought, and the Session does not rule correctly, the decision can be appealed to Presbytery.

Right?


----------



## jwithnell

> there may be only one or two elders on a session that remotely remind one of the aforementioned.


Then there should only be one or two elders on that session -- opps, if only one, that means there are not enough elders in the congregation to have a separately functioning session. So be it; that's better than inventing a "better" system.

While a sabbatical can be quite helpful (our pastor did so a few years ago and we have one elder on sabbatical now) a rotation does not seem to meet the perpetual nature of the office. What's critical here is that God gives the church specific gifts and the men on session, while having the same qualifications, often have different personalities, previous experiences in life, and so forth. Who can predict when the church might need to draw on these resources?


----------



## Zenas

Can be. What Fred is pointing out though is the obvious conflict of interest present. In some situations, someone might be bringing charges against most, if not all, of a session. Then what? They hold a court for themselves? 

In my experience, there is an astounding lack of oversight at the local level in Presbyterianism; especially for a set of denominations that seems to strive for accountability. The only thing you can do is, as you say, bring charges. It's either full throttle, or nothing. In some cases, bringing charges against an elder or elders means complete ostracism in the community; e.g. unwelcome at church, not spoken to at the grocery store, excluded from social functions. In larger urban areas, this wouldn't be noticed. In smaller, rural communities, it is. 

The change to the rules proposed in the OP can, in some cases, prevent things like this from occurring. It's not fool proof though. The congregation may simply re-elect unfit elders perennially.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------




> Then there *should* only be one or two elders on that session -- opps, if only one, that means there are not enough elders in the congregation to have a separately functioning session. So be it; that's better than inventing a "better" system.



I emphasized the key part of your point. 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. There should be only one or two men on the session if only one or two are fit to serve. I can't tell you how much I agree with you. The problem is, many people who fills the pews on a weekly basis don't care. The men they are electing are their friends and family members. It doesn't enter their mind to consider whether they're going to be good elders.

In practice, I agree, what you state should be the case. In reality, it's not. It's the reason why I want to interview the session of the next church I join.


----------



## fredtgreco

sastark said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA BCO makes this de jure impossible. The reality of life in the PCA, ARP and OPC makes this de facto impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred: Apologies if I misunderstand, but is it not possible for a member of a PCA (or OPC, ARP, etc) congregation to bring charges against an elder? That's what I meant by "appeal to Presbytery". If a charge is brought, and the Session does not rule correctly, the decision can be appealed to Presbytery.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...

This is theory, not reality. Therefore it is dangerous.

When someone brings charges, the reality of it is that it is full throttle. More likely than not, it will mean an end to one's life in a church (as Andrew mentions above). Most often, in my experience, it will mean a church split at minimum, and maybe the death of the church. This reality is why pastors leave churches rather than fight to the bitter end.

As far as process goes, the court that holds the trial is the Session. Often these cases are not black and white. Sometimes unBiblical elders are lording it over the flock. Sometimes, willful congregants are bucking true oversight. It can be hard to tell, and harder still to *show by the rules of evidence*. Once the Session has ruled, the matter can be taken to the Presbytery. The first challenge with that is that the congregant will likely have to wait around 6-9 months for the matter to be resolved (from when charges were first brought). The turmoil in a church during that time can be unbelievable. The second thing is that on appeal, the _substance_ of the ruling is often not a matter of debate. It is whether the process was followed (procedure). The PCA BCO makes the role of the higher court clear (and limited) :



> 2. A higher court should ordinarily exhibit *great deference *to a lower
> court regarding those *factual matters *which the lower court is more
> competent to determine, because of its proximity to the events in
> question, and because of its personal knowledge and observations of
> the parties and witnesses involved. Therefore, a higher court should
> not reverse a factual finding of a lower court, unless there is clear
> error on the part of the lower court.
> 3. A higher court should ordinarily exhibit *great deference *to a lower
> court regarding *those matters of discretion and judgment *which can
> only be addressed by a court with familiar acquaintance of the
> events and parties. Such matters of discretion and judgment would
> include, but not be limited to: *the moral character of candidates for
> sacred office*, the appropriate censure to impose after a disciplinary
> trial, or judgment about the comparative credibility of conflicting
> witnesses. Therefore, a higher court should not reverse such a
> judgment by a lower court, unless there is clear error on the part of
> the lower court. (BCO 39-3, emphasis added)



I'd be surprised if the ARP book is much different. I know the practice isn't.


----------



## sastark

Andrew: I want to let you know that I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying. I grew up (a pastor's kid) in a small, rural Reformed church. I saw first hand members of the church electing their uncles, brothers, cousins, etc to the Session (and deacon board!). I also saw "the system" fail. The right system: Presbyterianism (or at least it was called). I fully appreciate the situation you describe.

Also, I think your idea of "interviewing the session of the next church you join" is wonderful. At Communion Presbyterian, when a person wants to join the church, the elders interview him/her, but it is also an opportunity for the potential member to interview us. As a matter of fact, we encourage regular visitors to come to a Session meeting and see how things work, ask any questions they may have, and give us any feedback long before they consider joining. We want Session to be open and accessible. I'm not trying to puff myself up (none of those things were my ideas, anyway!), but I do wish more Reformed churches approached Session and membership the way it's done at Communion.

So, I sympathize with your position. I've seen Presbyterianism fail, due to "good ol' boy" networks. But, I remain very skeptical about rotating elders off active duty every year, two years, four years, etc. I just can't find biblical warrant for that. Perhaps, a better method would be for the Session to approach an elder who needs a break about taking a sabbatical (if he doesn't "volunteer" himself for a sabbatical). In other words, if the elders would hold each other accountable, perhaps term limits wouldn't even be considered.


----------



## Zenas

I don't recall it being much different. I looked into the matter, but it was some time ago. In substance, everything you say is 100% correct from what I've seen. 

Independent is taking a stab at changing things for the better. It won't necessarily work. I've seen that plan not work. They have an extremely large pool of available candidates though. I know men personally there who would make very fine elders. Men who I would *joyfully* sit under. Where I have not seen it work is with smaller pools of men. Things are less competitive and it's easy to dominate large portions of the vote. I don't think that can happen so much at the OP's church. Given their size, I'm inclined to think this plan has a better chance of working than I've seen in other places. 

One thing I'm convinced of is that Presbyterianism needs more oversight. That sounds like such an odd thing to say. However, the option of filing charges is very problematic and not even likely to render a result any different than that reached by the local session. In situations where the local session is the problem... how is that proper? There needs to be some independent and objective way to examine potential problems with elders, other than asking the elders themselves. In theory, all elders would be men above reproach. The very fact that we have to contemplate a procedure for bringing charges against them drives home the reality that they're not. Why then do we write a procedure as if they are?

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------




sastark said:


> In other words, if the elders would hold each other accountable, perhaps term limits wouldn't even be considered.



I agree 100%. Again, that hinges on the elders actually doing that. In some situations though, it's the whole Session that potentially has problems. They're sure not going to be addressing the other guy, because that means they have to address themselves.


----------



## sastark

Fred:

It appears that "deference to a lower court" is not part of the ARP's Book of Discipline (though I admit I am not as familiar with it as I ought to be). Here is the relevant section (full PDF is available here, if anyone is interested):



> D. APPEALS
> 1. An appeal is a legal proceeding by which a case is brought from a lower to a higher court for rehearing. The effect of an appeal is to suspend all further proceedings in the case, including the sentence, until the case has been finally decided in a higher court. If a sentence of suspension or deposition be appealed from, however, it shall be considered in force until the matter is decided.
> 
> 2. An appeal can normally be made only by an accused party, called the appellant, who has submitted to a regular trial. An appellant who has not submitted to a regular trial is not entitled to an appeal.
> 
> 3. An appeal can be made only to the next higher court, except with the express consent of that court.
> 
> 4. An appeal may be made either from a definite sentence or from any particular part of the proceedings. The grounds for an appeal include matters such as any irregularity in the proceedings of the lower court; hindrance of procedural rights; refusal of reasonable indulgence to a party on trial; receiving
> improper or declining to receive proper evidence; rendering a decision before all testimony is taken; evidence for bias or prejudice in the case; and an unjust or mistaken sentence.
> 
> 5. The appellant must make his appeal, together with the reasons for it, in writing, either to the court hearing his case before it adjourns or to the moderator or the clerk of that court within ten days after the judgment appealed from is pronounced. The appeal, however, should not be refused if reasons for unavoidable delay can be demonstrated.
> 
> 6. The appellant shall lodge his appeal, with the reasons for it, with the clerk of the higher court prior to the beginning of its next regular meeting. The clerk of the lower court appealed from shall send the full record of the case or a certified copy to the higher court by the same time.
> 
> 7. Evidence that has come to light at the first trial may be presented by either the appellant or appellee in an appeal.
> 
> 8. The higher court may, at its own discretion, appoint one or more of its members to assist in the presentation of the case to its court.
> 
> 9. After a higher court has decided that an appeal is in order and that it should be considered by the court, the following procedures are to be followed: (1) reading the appeal, with the reasons for it; (2) reading the record of the case, which may include the whole record or only that part of it against which appeal is being made; (3) hearing the parties, the appellant
> having the right of opening and closing the argument; (4) taking the vote, with members having the right to vote either to sustain, to sustain in part, or not to sustain the appeal.
> 
> 10. If the appeal is sustained, either in whole or in part, the judgment of the lower court is set aside, and the court may either close the case, if further proceedings are unnecessary; it may try the case itself; it may send the case back to the lower court for a new trial; or it may remit the case back to a lower court for the purpose of amending the record, if it appears incorrect or defective.
> 
> 11. If the appeal is not sustained, the judgment of the lower court is upheld.
> 
> 12. The decision of the higher court shall be recorded and a copy of it shall be sent to the lower court.
> 
> 13. If after entering his appeal, the appellant does not appear before the higher court either in person or by counsel at its next meeting following the date of his notice of appeal, the appeal shall be treated as abandoned and the judgment of the lower court shall stand, unless the appellant can furnish the
> court with satisfactory explanation of his failure to appear.
> 
> 14. In cases where an appeal would necessarily and injuriously delay proceedings, it is proper for the lower court to refuse to admit an appeal and proceed with the trial. In such cases the party refused an appeal may register his complaint with the next higher court.


----------



## Scott1

Anecdotally, I have not seen the widespread problems mentioned.

Rather, the opposite.

The process for qualifying an officer (deacon or elder) involving a semester study with other other potential candidates, led by Senior Pastoral staff.

Then a separate doctrinal examination.

Then an extensive home life examination involving the spouse (by I Timothy 3, e.g. wives of deacons), culminating in a home visit by at least two elders, a vote by session, then presentation to the congregation by way of Christian testimony and later a vote by the congregation.

Lots of steps to confirm that God is calling and equipping that man for office, tested by I Timothy 3 and Titus I.

If all is confirmed (and many, many are screened out along the way for various reasons, often withdrawing themselves), then they are ordained in public ordinance of worship with vows, and installed for a term of office.

At the end of the term, mandatory sabbatical is required, and to serve again for term, at least an abbreviated form of the above process, all over again.

While not perfect, this helps all- session, diaconate, congregation and the man himself to assess God's calling.

Even the sabbatical is a proper and good period for spiritual assessment.

God blesses and leads this process, and we have every right to have faith that He will- after all, He is the one who calls and appoints those who would be officers in authority for the benefit of His people.

Set terms of office, with mandatory breaks, and re-installation requirements don't detract from this in any way, but are safeguards that benefit the church, and the individuals involved.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Scott,

What you mention above I have not seem to be the norm. I would welcome a separate thread about our experiences with the training of Elders (if the mods and/or you and/or the OP deem it necessary). Unfortunately I have seen what Andrew describes being the norm of my experience.


----------



## caoclan

sastark said:


> What Andrew said. Is there a scriptural basis for "terms" of service for elders/deacons? If not, by what authority does a church limit the service of a man called to be an elder?
> 
> As a side note, I find it hard to believe that, even in a congregation of 2000, you have enough qualified men to serve as elders to be able to fill a Session, AND have 25% of the men rotate out every year. I looked at your church's website. Currently, you have 19 men listed as Ruling Elders (Link). Assuming you plan on keeping the Session the same size if term limits are imposed, that means between 4 and 5 men rotating off the Session every year, and 4 to 5 men coming on to Session every year. You would, at a minimum, need 5 more elders than what you currently have, but I'd be suspicious that it wouldn't always be the same 4 or 5 men coming on/leaving Session, which means you would need new men to fill those empty spots. It sounds like an easy way to force unqualified men into the office of elder simply because you "don't have enough guys".
> 
> (In case anyone was wondering about the math, like I was, a congregation of 2000, with 19 ruling elders is a ratio of 1 RE to every 105 congregants. Assuming women and children make up about 75% of that number, that means one man in every 26 men is currently serving as an elder. If you add just 5 more elders, your ratio of elders to men in the congregation changes to 1 elder for every 20 men in the congregation. Now, maybe y'all in Tennessee are blessed with an overabundance of qualified men, but I'd be hard pressed to find 1 man in 20 in California that is qualified and called to serve as an elder.)
> 
> One final note: Will the Teaching Elders also be rotating out every 4 years? Why not?



Wow... I ask a question and leave the house for the day, then... BOOM! More info... the elders/deacons may be reelected/reinstalled perpetually. And, my church wants to come up to 1:50 elder:congregant ratio. Other than that, I have not yet read all of the responses.


----------



## caoclan

And, as further clarification, the positions on the session are what will be rotated. The elders will always be elders, or deacons always deacons. Those positions on the session can be perpetually filled by the sitting elders (as I understand it). One reason mentioned in the meeting we had this Lord's Day was to identify other individuals who might be called to serve as elders/deacons. We also have an extensive training process for candidates, as I have been told.


----------



## TheElk

caoclan said:


> Wanted some thoughts on RE/Deacon elections. Currently my PCA church nominates elders/deacons for an indefinite (life, resignation, or discipline, I guess) period of time. We are considering elections on a 4-year rotational basis, with elections happening every year, rotating approximately 25% out every year, when fully implemented. My church has approximately 2,000 congregants. This change will be decided by a congregational vote.
> 
> Can I get some thoughts (particularly from those who believe an elder-led congregation is correct) on the pros/cons of making the switch? If more info is needed, please let me know.



Being a Ruling Elder is a calling from God. When the Elder feels that he is no longer called to serve in that position he should resign. Unless of course the rest of the Elders need to remove him under Biblical discipline.


----------



## seajayrice

I dunno, I can think of a few PCA Presbyteries that could not do much worse . . .


----------

