# Teaching and Ruling Elder



## larryjf

I seem to remember that there is a Presbyterian church out there that does not hold to a distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elder.

Anybody familiar with these groups? I can't remember the name of the one that i am thinking of.


----------



## bookslover

larryjf said:


> I seem to remember that there is a Presbyterian church out there that does not hold to a distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elder.
> 
> Anybody familiar with these groups? I can't remember the name of the one that i am thinking of.



From the Bible's standpoint, to say "teaching and ruling elder" is inaccurate, in that, according to the pastoral epistles, _all_ elders must be able to teach. The Scriptures distinguish between elders and deacons, not between elders who are able to teach and elders who are not.

In my opinion, the phrase "teaching and ruling elder" is a 3-office distinction, not a biblical one.

I know this doesn't answer the question you asked, but I just thought I'd throw my  in there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Here's another related question... Are ruling elders to be prefaced as "Rev." like TE's are?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Are there any history buffs on this one who can explain the historic Presbyterian distinction between Ministers/Pastors/Teaching Elders who are traditionally members of the Presbytery and licensed by them and Ruling Elders who are elected solely by the local congregation and maintain local membership?

I ask because years ago I studied this during leadership classes and found it interesting that the OPC and PCA don't maintain, on paper, the distinction between the Offices but they practically do. A ruling elder cannot preach, he can only exhort. He cannot administer the Lord's Supper. There are other differences.

Thus, while the OPC and PCA and other Presbyterian denominations say they hold to a two office view, they practice a three office view.

I've oft wondered if we've just inherited the practice of a professional ministry and never broke ourselves of the habit in Presbyterianism or if the Westminister standards spell that out a bit more in some of the documents I'm less familiar with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> A ruling elder cannot preach, he can only exhort.



This is strictly a semantic difference, of course, fervently maintained by 3-office folks in order to protect what is, from their point of view, what they think is their "territory". From the viewpoint of the pew, there is no practical difference.

The Bible knows only two offices: deacon and elder. Some elders hold full-time preaching and teaching positions (we call them "pastors"). But _all_ elders are biblicallly required to be able to teach.

1 Timothy 5:17 states that the "elders who rule well" are to be "considered worthy of double honor" - that means _all_ the elders who rule well, without distinction. Paul goes on to mention "especially" those who "labor in preaching and teaching". He wants to make sure that these latter are especially remembered, but he still is only including them as a subset of the "elders who rule well".

Unfortunately, I believe the 3-office folks have taken that term "especially" and used it to create this gulf between "teaching elders" and "ruling elders". An unbiblical distinction, in my view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Richard, supposing there is no difference, should these ruling elders who exhort/preach be trained and ordained by presbytery?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> This is strictly a semantic difference, of course, fervently maintained by 3-office folks in order to protect what is, from their point of view, what they think is their "territory". From the viewpoint of the pew, there is no practical difference.


It's not just a semantic difference. One has to be _licensed_ to preach in PCA and OPC churches. I don't know about all the other ones.



> The Bible knows only two offices: deacon and elder. Some elders hold full-time preaching and teaching positions (we call them "pastors"). But _all_ elders are biblicallly required to be able to teach.
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:17 states that the "elders who rule well" are to be "considered worthy of double honor" - that means _all_ the elders who rule well, without distinction. Paul goes on to mention "especially" those who "labor in preaching and teaching". He wants to make sure that these latter are especially remembered, but he still is only including them as a subset of the "elders who rule well".
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe the 3-office folks have taken that term "especially" and used it to create this gulf between "teaching elders" and "ruling elders". An unbiblical distinction, in my view.



I'm not in complete disagreement on this but whether or not they'll come out and say it clearly, the OPC and PCA are pretty much 3 office denominations. I'm curious about the history of this and how it's been developed. One can argue for the equity all day long but the fact is that Presbyterians demand significant training and examination for one type of elder but relatively little (by comparison) for the other. Also, one type is a member of the Presbytery and not the local Church.

How did this arise historically?


----------



## Steve

Larry, one such denomination is the Covenant Presbyterian Church. Within CPC, there is a 2 office view in word and in practice. Elders are examined and ordained at the Presbytery level. While some of the Elders may be in ministry full time, each is required to be able to teach and each does teach in practice.


----------



## larryjf

Steve,

Thank you so much, that is the denomination that i was trying to think of.

These responses are great. Hopefully we will get some more regarding the history behind it and such.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

bookslover said:


> From the Bible's standpoint, to say "teaching and ruling elder" is inaccurate, in that, according to the pastoral epistles, _all_ elders must be able to teach. The Scriptures distinguish between elders and deacons, not between elders who are able to teach and elders who are not.
> 
> In my opinion, the phrase "teaching and ruling elder" is a 3-office distinction, not a biblical one.
> 
> I know this doesn't answer the question you asked, but I just thought I'd throw my  in there.




Thats a good point... I have often been confused by that distinction myself.


----------



## ADKing

Historic Presbyterianism (as represented by the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government) has been emphatically 3 office. There was even some unclarity during the time whether the 4th office of "doctor" was to be considered a ministerial function that was allowed to adminster sacraments. I would heartily encourage all presbyterians to read this document because it shows what the tradition historically stood for. 

Ruling elders were considered a distinct office. The biblical warrant was found in the elders that are often described in the OT and it was an ecclesiastical office that carried over from OT to NT. NT warrant is found in the passages where Paul lists among the gifts of the church, gifts of "government". 

Historically, presbyterians regarded the ministerial office as being uniquely instuted by Christ in the NT. It was not an office that carried over from the OT but one that had similar features with the Levites and priests. I am _not_ saying that ministers _are_ priests like the Romanists would. Nevertheless, to this ministerial office (and it alone) belongs the authoritative preaching of the Word, and administeration of sacraments. Ministers also have a ruling authority which they are to exercise in common with the other officers (ruling elders or "other church governors" as they are known in the WFPG) whose sole fuction is ruling. Quite often reformation writers will indicate that when the term "elder" appears in the NT it is referring to the ministerial office and _not_ to other church governers (what we call ruling elders). 

Likewise, the diaconate was an office thought to be ordained for the New Testament adminstration of the covenant of grace. 

The so called "two-office" view gained greater popularity under Thornwell and Dabney in the USA and Witherow in the UK during the 19th century. This revision of historic presbyterian polity was opposed by the Princetonians in the USA as well as Smyth, a Southern Presbyterian! 

The two office view in my opinion is not historic presbyterianism but a revision of it. The reason for the three office view is not so ministers can "protect their territory" or gain undue power over others, but because presbyterianism has believed it accords better with the Bible itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thank you for that historical explanation. I've seen the same argument for the historic office distinction between priestly ministries and ruling as well.

I'm not saying I disagree with stricter ordination requirements for teaching elders and am sympathetic to the arguments for the historic practice. My point is that many Presbyterian denominations _claim_ to be two office but are really three office. A former pastor of mine even said the OPC was 2.5 office but of course such things are never written down.

It is just interesting to me that the BCO or any other official Church documents doesn't do any work to explain the distinction. I've been in discussion on this subject during leadership classes and wanted to know "why the difference" given their supposed commitment to a two office view. No pastor was ever able to explain the practice as it differed from what they claim they believe. I only wanted an explanation, not to challenge the practice.

It seems to me that many just accept "this is the way things are" and never have given much thought to the stark difference between the teaching elder (minister/pastor) and ruling elder given their denominations articulated commitment to a two office view.


----------



## SRoper

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not saying I disagree with stricter ordination requirements for teaching elders and am sympathetic to the arguments for the historic practice. My point is that many Presbyterian denominations _claim_ to be two office but are really three office. A former pastor of mine even said the OPC was 2.5 office but of course such things are never written down.



You may be interested in the following PCA position paper where the term "two-and-a-half-office view" _is_ written down:

REPORT OF THE AD-INTERIM COMMITTEE ON NUMBER OF OFFICES


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SRoper said:


> You may be interested in the following PCA position paper where the term "two-and-a-half-office view" _is_ written down:
> 
> REPORT OF THE AD-INTERIM COMMITTEE ON NUMBER OF OFFICES



Thanks Scott. That's perfect.


----------



## MW

Steve said:


> Larry, one such denomination is the Covenant Presbyterian Church. Within CPC, there is a 2 office view in word and in practice. Elders are examined and ordained at the Presbytery level. While some of the Elders may be in ministry full time, each is required to be able to teach and each does teach in practice.



At least it has consistency on its side. I cannot see how it can give expression to the Presbyterian minister's conviction: "necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is me, if I preach not the gospel." In pursuance of that conviction numerous men have turned their back on their earthly estates and careers, spent many years in training, worked tirelessly and suffered gladly for the sake of the gospel.

I think if I were a part of a consistent two office system I would say to those non full time elders what was said to Archippus, "Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it." The fact that ruling elders are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to fulfil the work of the ministry is the reason why they are not recognised as labouring in the same office as those who preach the Word and administer the sacraments.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Really, the OPC is pretty much an admittedly 3-office denomination, not a 2-office. The OPC BCO (my copy is 1995, a bit dated) clearly distinguishes the "minister or teaching elder" from the "ruling elder." The 2X addition of "or teaching elder" in ch. vi. (once in the title, once in the body) is plainly an insertion. I don't know if it even survived in later revisions.

The PCA deliberately sought to erase the 3-office distinction by emphasizing parity of elders in their BCO. They go out of their way to eliminate on paper the notion of clergy. However, in practice they cannot help but move toward a 3-office view. That is, unless they start to lose the presbyterian identity in either direction: clericalism or congrgationalism.

In reality, both denominations "look like" 2.5-office churches, at least for the time being. The presumption of ministerial "superiority" or "arrogance" is not found any more often in the OPC than elsewhere, and probably a good deal less. And the "ideal" of parity of eldership in the PCA is seldom achieved, because their ruling elders are no less consumed by other affairs of life than elders in 3-office churches.


There is no small amount of irony in the historic trajectory of both these denominations. The PCA was created with the strong belief that bureaucracy had brought down the Southern church, a hierarchy dominated by liberal MINISTERS, trained by liberals in the seminaries. So, _parity_ was an important principle to them in the development of the new denomination. The highest court, the GA, was not to be dominated by the clergy. All committees and commissions were to have equal RE/TE representation, a principle that was even carried down into many a presbytery organization.

In reality, more TEs have always gone to PCA GA, and ALL of them are seated as commissioners. Fred Greco even informed me some time ago that GA rules were adjusted so that after the first day, basically ANY RE could come and be seated as a voting delegate, simply to make up a small part of the inevitable deficit of RE representation. But even so, however often this might take place (who knows?) it scarcely changes the makeup of the GA.

Furthermore, if one looks at the 70 years of OPC, and the 33 years of the PCA, it is _utterly amazing_ to any impartial observer to see which of these two churches is encumbered with bureaucracy. NOT the OPC, not by a mile. Instead, the PCA is _by far_ the most bureaucratized.

Just examine the function of the highest church court (GA). The PCA has a convention, the OPC a deliberative body. The PCA is fraught with extra-GA politicking and caucus building, long before the matters come up for vote. The OPC, with its delegated assembly and fixed federal (representative) size, endures often long and tedious debate, but gathers the mind of the church through its presbytery representatives in so doing. The OPC GA also actually sits as a court to hear appeals. The PCA GA simply receives the reports of its SJC, which has already been delegated the duty of justice. As of last year, the PCA GA also delegated most of its deliberative legislative functions to one of its committees.

I revisit this material to point out that in one significant sense, the OPC with its fairly unambiguous 3-office schema, has maintained particular church powers, presbytery powers, and GA powers, a small (even tiny!) bureaucratic administration, and significant RE representation and presence (to include one of it's chief bureaucrats--the General Secretary for Foreign Missions, RE Mark Bube); while the PCA with its unambiguous 2-office schema has in less than half the time of the OPC's existence become nearly everything it set out to avoid--a denomination controlled by its bureaucracy, its seminary, its largest churches, its ministerial cliques, indeed by its very "identity" as "the grass-roots [read: democratic] presbyterian church."


----------

