# Limited Terms for church officers



## Pilgrim

What is the origin of having limited terms for church officers (elder and deacon) that is apparently widely practiced in PCA and other churches? 

I was not familiar with this coming from the OPC (is it practiced at all in the OPC?) but after my move I find that all of the PCA churches here follow the practice and an EPC church in the area does as well.


----------



## Herald

I can only speak for our church. One pastor and two elders. There are no other qualified men for these offices. A rotation schedule would be great but we don't have that luxury.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

We do terms in our OPC church. Personally, I wish it were structured differently here. I happen to think that if a body calls a man to lead them, with the allowance for breaks or sabbaticals, he should not stand for "re-election". He was called to that office, and he accepted it--yes, perhaps in that circumstance for a "term", but in reality for a lifetime; he will not be "re-ordained" if he serves again, not unless he is stripped of office and then reinstated. So, how can you be an office-bearer and not exercise the office, unless you have left that church entirely, and wait for a new call? Being granted a Leave of Absence is one thing. And then you are called back to duty--mandatory duty, not called back to stand for an election.

That's how I see it, anyway, but not how we do it in our one church, however, as respects the elders and deacons. It is obviously different for ministers--he isn't called in for a "term" if the call is regular.


----------



## Zenas

The ARP allows the local church to decide if they do terms or not. The position is for life, I believe, but you can go "on duty" and "off duty" as a deacon or elder. 

The deacons serve 2 year terms on, and then 2 off. I believe the elders have 4 year terms.


----------



## Pilgrim

I was listening to some S. Lewis Johnson messages recently. He said the origin of the practice went something like this. "Well, brother Smith isn't doing the job as elder, but instead of making a scene, we'll just institute term limits." 

Interestingly for a non Presbyterian, Dr. Johnson also said that there *is* warrant for making a distinction between ruling and teaching elders.


----------



## greenbaggins

I believe that the practice of terms comes from the Continental tradition. All the CRC and RCA churches in our area do terms. Personally, it drives me crazy, because most of the time, the person who gets elected only does it "because it's his turn." They don't usually feel called, except in the ballot.


----------



## Kevin

Zenas said:


> The ARP allows the local church to decide if they do terms or not. The position is for life, I believe, but you can go "on duty" and "off duty" as a deacon or elder.
> 
> The deacons serve 2 year terms on, and then 2 off. I believe the elders have 4 year terms.



3 years for deacons. For elders the term is to be not less than 4 or more than 6.

And yes it is decided by the local chuch.


----------



## SRoper

I didn't realize the PCA BCO allowed terms or reelection. I thought the only way an elder can be removed from office is if charges are brought against him. Our church requires ruling elders to take a one year sabatical after three years of service, but they don't have to be reelected.


----------



## raekwon

SRoper said:


> I didn't realize the PCA BCO allowed terms or reelection. I thought the only way an elder can be removed from office is if charges are brought against him. Our church requires ruling elders to take a one year sabatical after three years of service, but they don't have to be reelected.



Term limitations (or a rotating duty schedule) isn't the same thing as removal from office. If a man rotates off of active duty as an elder or deacon, he retains his office. He's just relieved of his duties (and vote) for that time period, until he rotates back on. He does not have to be re-elected, as his ordination is perpetual (as is his installation, as long as he stays at that church).


----------



## DMcFadden

Pilgrim said:


> What is the origin of having limited terms for church officers (elder and deacon) that is apparently widely practiced in PCA and other churches?
> 
> I was not familiar with this coming from the OPC (is it practiced at all in the OPC?) but after my move I find that all of the PCA churches here follow the practice and an EPC church in the area does as well.



All things decently and in order.


----------



## tcalbrecht

The BCO does not explicitly endorse term limits. In fact there is wording that seems contrary to the concept. 

I believe the practice of term limits in the PCA is an accommodation from the joining and receiving with the RPCES, which had term limits for officers.

My former PCA church did not have term limits, but it did offer an opportunity for a one year sabbatical after six years of service.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I can tell you that I don't like the practice much either.

Romans 12


> 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.



I'm reminded of this very recently because I've run into many men who don't show mercy with cheerfulness (thinking especially of diaconal work) and serve out of a sense of burden. I've seen men literally walk away from the ministry after being bogged down by this attitude. It provides strength for a season but then cannot last the many discouragements and difficulties that attend to Church Office.

I honestly believe that the most profound development in my thinking over the last year has really been getting some of the idea of what the Gospel does to our attitudes about service. Men who ought to be impelled by Gospel motivation are really very often impelled by a Law motivation. The former can be sustained but the latter will burn out and can even ultimately shipwreck a man's home. I've literally been astonished at how the parable of Christ about the man building his house on sand and the suddenness of the home being swept away has proven true in multiple situations. It's amazing that, often times, there is very little warning from men who are all smiles and then one day stop coming to Church.

I think that if we were more careful to evaluate the motives of many men and spent more time developing Gospel belief to impel men to service then, on the one hand, elders and deacons wouldn't have to be the focal point for everything that happens in the Church. That is to say, you'd have less people standing around wanting the Church to be the focal point for everything and they'd be about their business as lightbearers throughout the week. On the other hand, those that were really called would be less likely to be burned out if their motivation was directed properly.

Don't get me wrong, I've been blessed(?) recently to find out why ministry is a full-time duty. It's not easy. It's the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. At the same time, though, I can't think of anything I _love_ doing any more. It really is a privilege to serve the people that God has purchased with His own blood.


----------



## mvdm

SemperFideles said:


> I can tell you that I don't like the practice much either.
> 
> Romans 12
> 
> 
> 
> 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reminded of this very recently because I've run into many men who don't show mercy with cheerfulness (thinking especially of diaconal work) and serve out of a sense of burden. I've seen men literally walk away from the ministry after being bogged down by this attitude. It provides strength for a season but then cannot last the many discouragements and difficulties that attend to Church Office.
> 
> I honestly believe that the most profound development in my thinking over the last year has really been getting some of the idea of what the Gospel does to our attitudes about service. Men who ought to be impelled by Gospel motivation are really very often impelled by a Law motivation. The former can be sustained but the latter will burn out and can even ultimately shipwreck a man's home. I've literally been astonished at how the parable of Christ about the man building his house on sand and the suddenness of the home being swept away has proven true in multiple situations. It's amazing that, often times, there is very little warning from men who are all smiles and then one day stop coming to Church.
> 
> I think that if we were more careful to evaluate the motives of many men and spent more time developing Gospel belief to impel men to service then, on the one hand, elders and deacons wouldn't have to be the focal point for everything that happens in the Church. That is to say, you'd have less people standing around wanting the Church to be the focal point for everything and they'd be about their business as lightbearers throughout the week. On the other hand, those that were really called would be less likely to be burned out if their motivation was directed properly.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I've been blessed(?) recently to find out why ministry is a full-time duty. It's not easy. It's the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. At the same time, though, I can't think of anything I _love_ doing any more. It really is a privilege to serve the people that God has purchased with His own blood.
Click to expand...


Amen to all of this!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders. 

In the OPC church we went to we had 3 or 4 elders, and had 3 year terms. So every year or two, one would have to be reelected to the session. But they did not have term limits. I'm not sure of the logic behind that structure for them since they are a relatively young church, and have always done it that way. But even inactive elders were not "inactive" since they still helped out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Puritan Sailor said:


> I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders.
> 
> In the OPC church we went to we had 3 or 4 elders, and had 3 year terms. So every year or two, one would have to be reelected to the session. But they did not have term limits. I'm not sure of the logic behind that structure for them since they are a relatively young church, and have always done it that way. But even inactive elders were not "inactive" since they still helped out.



It does seem especially problematic for a small Church. I was blessed to be a part of a small OPC congregation that has had the theological honesty to remain non-particularized for over 8 years because there hasn't been a single man qualified for elder in all that time. It's fallen under another Church and a commission serves as the head of the congregation.

Small Churches with a term limit structure would be forced to compromise on ordination standards and allow any willing male to step into the eldership unless they want to sacrifice their status as a particular congregation.


----------



## Pilgrim

Puritan Sailor said:


> I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders.



This is precisely the explanation that S. Lewis Johnson (who was once a Presbyterian) gave in the lecture I listened to. I don't know that this is the reason for it in every case, but it seems plausible. Of course a rotation system doesn't really deal with bad elders if they are simply rotated back on in a few years, it just gets rid of them for a while.


----------



## Pilgrim

I have also thought that if a church has "too many elders" (if that's another excuse for the rotation practice), that perhaps a new church should be planted with some of the elders going there. I think there may be a tendency to be too attached to a particular church, especially if it is a "big steeple", prestigious type of church that has a popular pastor.


----------



## SRoper

Puritan Sailor said:


> I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders.



I find it very difficult to believe that a PCA church would be allowed to institute term limits. That means an elder would be required to retire after a certain number of years of service and wouldn't be allowed to serve as elder again.


----------



## Pilgrim

SRoper said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very difficult to believe that a PCA church would be allowed to institute term limits. That means an elder would be required to retire after a certain number of years of service and wouldn't be allowed to serve as elder again.
Click to expand...


Not term limits in the way that the President is limited but a rotation system.


----------



## BertMulder

The practice was instituted in the continental reformed churches, as also recognized by the Church Order of Dordt. Believe it was first instituted in Geneva, however, or even perhaps earlier, in the churches of Hesse, Germany, or else by Zwingli in Switzerland.



> Article 27
> The Elders and Deacons shall serve two or more years according to local regulations, and a proportionate number shall retire each year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by others, unless the circumstances and the profit of any church, in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a re-election advisable.




This is what Prof. Hanko notes in his syllabus on the article: 



> The elders and deacons shall serve two or more years according to local regulations, and a proportionate number shall retire each year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by others, unless the circumstances and the profit of any church, in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a reelection advisable.
> 
> 
> 
> Decision pertaining to Article 27
> In case of difficulties in the congregation, the officebearers then serving shall continue to function until their chosen successors can be installed.
> 
> (Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article has a rather important history. The principle, namely that the offices of elder and deacon are not permanent, was maintained already by John Calvin. He was afraid of the hierarchy of the Romish church and found nothing in Scripture to indicate that the term of elders and deacons must be for life. He therefore instituted the principle of mandatory retirement.
> 
> In the early history of the Reformed churches, both in Geneva and in the Netherlands, the term of office was set at one year. Soon it was extended to two years. And later to a longer term yet.
> 
> Our present article dates from the 1905 revision in the Netherlands and the 1914 edition adopted by the Christian Reformed Church in our country.
> 
> At present, in the Netherlands, longer terms are common, sometimes extending five or six years. In our churches, the general rule is three years.
> 
> The principle of the article is, negatively, that the office of elder and deacon is not permanent. Scripture itself is silent on the matter. It is, therefore, a matter to be decided upon by the general principle of the well-being of the church. The chief reason for maintaining a limited tenure is the constant and very real danger of hierarchy within the church. (For detailed arguments pro and con, cf. VanDellen and Monsma, pp. 125, 126.)
> 
> The article speaks of a limited tenure, the minimum of which is to be two years. This is considered to be the minimum for effective labor in the offices referred to. Generally speaking, two years is indeed the minimum; longer terms are surely desirable. Both the profit of the officebearers individually and the profit of the congregation are served by longer terms. Even with three-year terms, one-third of the consistory changes every year. Especially when some problem is with the congregation for an extended period of time, changes in the consistory make it difficult to deal effectively with the problem. This is, however, a matter of local regulation and is under the jurisdiction of the consistory.
> 
> Definite retirement from office means that those who have filled their terms shall retire and be succeeded by others. This retirement must be on a proportionate basis. Since the retiring officebearers are to be succeeded by others, they are not eligible for reelection. The period of retirement is not
> stipulated in the article. This, too, is a matter of local regulation. The minimum is, of course, one year. This minimum is the general rule in our churches for the reason that qualified men should not be idle.
> 
> Provision is made for reelection under certain circumstances. The article reads: “… unless the circumstances and the profit of any church, in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a reelection advisable.” This usually refers to the possibility of failing to obtain a new nomination of qualified men. But should a man be renominated without the minimum of one-year retirement, he must retire first and then be reelected.
> 
> The footnote speaks of one exception to the rule concerning retirement. It permits continuation in office in case of difficulties in the congregation. These difficulties are of such a kind that they make installation of new officebearers unwise or impossible. These difficulties may be trouble in the congregation, trouble involving one or more of the retiring officebearers, trouble involving one or more of the newly elected officebearers. Installation is then postponed temporarily.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bert,

Thanks for the background.

What would be the argument that the Continental Reformed would have made for distinguishing between teaching and ruling elders in terms of the perpetuity of their office?

In other words, if the idea is sound in terms of retirement and succession for ruling elders and deacons then why isn't it sound in terms of retiring ministers? Ironically, it is the perpetuity of ministers and not ruling elders that tends toward the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

SRoper said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard of a PCA church today that instituted term limits basically because the session (which was large) refused to discipline its own deficient elders. So the people took matters into their own hands and instituted a rotation system. Ideally, elders who aren't doing their job should be confronted. But many people won't do that out of fear. The rotation system was used instead to deal with the bad elders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very difficult to believe that a PCA church would be allowed to institute term limits. That means an elder would be required to retire after a certain number of years of service and wouldn't be allowed to serve as elder again.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't mean term limits, but that after his term he had to wait for another rotation. In that particular church it was 4 year terms. And I believe they had to be reelected to serve on the session again. Thus, the bad elders would theoretically not be reelected.


----------



## BertMulder

SemperFideles said:


> Bert,
> 
> Thanks for the background.
> 
> What would be the argument that the Continental Reformed would have made for distinguishing between teaching and ruling elders in terms of the perpetuity of their office?
> 
> In other words, if the idea is sound in terms of retirement and succession for ruling elders and deacons then why isn't it sound in terms of retiring ministers? Ironically, it is the perpetuity of ministers and not ruling elders that tends toward the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.



Would seem to me that the distinction may be that a ruling elder is strictly local, whereas teaching elders (pastors) may, and usually are called away to another church after a certain period of time.

A little bit difficult to compare to the Roman Catholic situation, as their elders (bishops), especially the primates, and again especially the bishop of Rome constituted the heirarchy. They did not really have a teaching office at the time of the reformation, although I suppose originally the priests would have constituted the teaching office, but very few priests, at least at the time of the reformation would actually preach, and the preaching was usually left to the monks, especially the Dominican order, who where either preaching or persecuting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Bert. It just doesn't seem that Scripture makes the distinction between the perpetuity of elders (and there's obviously a debate within Reformed circles about whether there are two or three offices). It seems, though, that whatever arguments were made about the forced retirement of an office bearer could be made to ministers as well and the distinction on locality seems arbitrary especially if the argument is a fear of a heirarchy developing as the danger is greater since pastors belong to the Church in general and not to a local Church.

Anyway, it's an interesting historical note and I appreciate your insight.


----------



## BertMulder

Am not disagreeing with you on the points you have made, and in many denominations a hierarchy of pastors is all powerful. As such the fear is not unreasonable.

And as far as Scripture, as you correctly noted, Scripture does not distinguish one way or the other.

We hold to 3 special offices, pastors, elders and deacons, or if you rather: teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons.


----------

